Talk:Microsoft/Archive 7

message: * Microsoft Versus — 'Dissecting Microsoft'
* Conference call transcripts — 'Microsoft's most recent conference call transcripts'
* CNN — 'Microsoft CEO before the US Congress (includes audio)'
* Court TV's complete coverage of Microsoft anti-trust case
Cka3n 23:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible sources for additional information to emend article (from old external links) 

message: As i am not a member of Wikipedia.org i cant fix this. But go to the ms page, search for "Bill gates is a fucking tosser" and delete it. Its written in the "2000–2005: Legal issues, XP, and .NET" section —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.89.16.183 (talk) 21:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you could add it too; you don't need to ask for it. · AO Talk 10:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Editing of this article by unregistered or newly registered users is currently disabled. And sadly I have just registerd. --Sjefen6 09:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait four days, then you will be able to edit it. ffm yes? 16:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It does sound odd, but it is in the dictionary! --Walafrid | talk 07:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone should edit this 

message: The intro seems very large, I think some of the detail should be merged into the rest of the article. Hmm? Stormx2 22:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction length? 

message: ===Removed unsourced info===
==== Ownership ====
*Bill Gates 9.51%. (As February 2007), (64% at the establishment, 40% in June 1986, 22.3% in September 1997 and 11% in 2001)
*Capital Research & Management Company 4.39%
*Steve Ballmer 4.16%
*Barclays Global Investors UK Holdings Ltd 4.16%
*State Street 2.64%
*The Vanguard Group 2.29%
*AXA 1.46%
*FMR Corporation 1.41%
04:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some edits 

message: ==== Ownership ====
*Bill Gates 9.51%. (As February 2007), (64% at the establishment, 40% in June 1986, 22.3% in September 1997 and 11% in 2001)
*Capital Research & Management Company 4.39%
*Steve Ballmer 4.16%
*Barclays Global Investors UK Holdings Ltd 4.16%
*State Street 2.64%
*The Vanguard Group 2.29%
*AXA 1.46%
*FMR Corporation 1.41%
04:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed unsourced info

message: *Bill Gates 9.51%. (As February 2007), (64% at the establishment, 40% in June 1986, 22.3% in September 1997 and 11% in 2001)
*Capital Research & Management Company 4.39%
*Steve Ballmer 4.16%
*Barclays Global Investors UK Holdings Ltd 4.16%
*State Street 2.64%
*The Vanguard Group 2.29%
*AXA 1.46%
*FMR Corporation 1.41%
04:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ownership 

message: This article is already fairly large, and really don't see the point in adding this statistical data that probably would never appear in an encyclopedia... if anyone really wants it they can add it back :D. For example, who comes to article to read "Gross Property, Plant & Equipment Turnover" of Microsoft? If someone does, then perhaps we seperate corporate article... RN 04:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Accounting Ratios" table

message: Removed as it seems like a trivia section in disquise, also currently doesn't seem to have much to do actually do with the company RN 05:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Microsoft in fiction"

message: I did a retouch - I also removed a sentence that seems that maybe it was refuting something from another version of the article or something (at the end of the edit) RN 05:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism retouch

message: There are some "drastic" things one could do if they were desperate to cut this article down:
* remove the part on Logos and slogans... actually i wrote most of that but looking back on it months later may be mostly trivia
* just remove the criticism section and make it a see also - that would cut 7k of prose right there but I'm not sure who would think that is a good idea
Just those two things would bring it back to the original prose size... and
* About the only way I can think of to shorten the lead to is to compact the part about the founding and move a tiny bit to history
* Remove the microsoft.com and maybe put a quick mention about the first site in 1993 from http://www.microsoft.com/misc/features/features_flshbk.htm
* Cut even the remotely important stuff from history - this is a tough one...
* Try to cut down the product divisions, the most you could probably do is about two sentences...
Just some ideas... feel free to come up with your own :D
RN 06:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could this possibly be split out into individual articles and linked? I know that's the lame way to do it, but it might be worth considering. //BankingBum 07:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I yanked about 4k from the history section.  Yeah, it's definitely tough.  I'm going to keep working on this in the next day or two.  The trick here is to find the right balance between software releases, business expansions, legal issues, and leadership shuffles.  Diversity makes for good reading!  We can probably de-emphasise the details of OS releases because the main articles themselves can explain that stuff...   -/- Warren 08:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I yanked another k this morning and we are down to 44k - half way there to the original 39k. One thing we could do is yank the founding and other mentions in the second intro paragraph up to the IPO point and put about two words in history about it. RN 17:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Hello. Any promotion of homosexuality should be removed from the article. It is not an issue of diversity. Scripture and the Catholic Church in the name of Jesus teach that immoral activity such as homosexuality is a mortal sin if engaged in knowingly and purposefully. Of course we should respect all people. This article is not the place to preach however this article is not the place to promote an agenda that is against faith either. At the very least, this article should be neutral on the subject. As it stands, the article promotes homesexuality. Coder1024 19:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion points for FARC 

message: Please help out with the new Microsoft portal at Microsoft portal. --Wiki Fanatic | Talk 06:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Microsoft Portal 

message: As one sees I yanked a bunch and move a bunch to History to Microsoft and tried to summarize that - article down to 32k prose size. Did I mess anything up? Anyone got any comments? Post here please :D:D:D RN 07:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The great FAR rework 

message: Am I the only one who is of the opinion that the article on Microsoft Corp reads too much like an advertisement?  It seems to be heavily biased as being pro microsoft, and seems to minimize the flaws and criticisms.
Climie.ca 15:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia and the objective is provide information. We aren't any type of press or polytical party we should provide information as possible if are veriafiable. If you want improve the article to turn it more neutral just do it and come back here to discuss your changes. --Ciao 90 21:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: How is stating the "positive" work ethic and the company's charity work POV, especially when it uses published sources to do so? Also, what does that have to do with lawsuits against other non-profit organizations? Two totally different things... however, if you have ideas on rewording it, have opposing data, or something else let me know :). Really this isn't meant to be an advocate for either side... RN 21:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  this page reads like an advertisement 

message: The section on outsourcing (in "Criticism") is not sourced.  It is somewhat true, but limited in scope, and why would it be a criticism?  Billg has recently testified to Congress to allow for the immigration of more highly-skilled foreign workers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ClarkLewis (talk • contribs) 04:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outsourcing 

message: : "Windows Vista had majors changes, mostly within its interface."
:: A look at Features new to Windows Vista confirm this is false. Interface is not mostly major changes in Vista and yes in their various core parts. I think who wrote this is pushing a superficial user user/press perpeception about Vista. And this is pretty biased. --Ciao 90 21:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windows Vista screenshot comment 

message: Update the Microsoft Board of Directors to include Reed Hastings: Microsoft Board of Directors Adds New Member and Declares Quarterly Dividend      Dax Eckenberg 04:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All done.  Thanks.   -/- Warren 04:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update to Board of Directors 

message: I am compiling the list at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Microsoft/archive1; it took me an hour and a half to get through the lead only.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ongoing problems with sources 

message: Now I seem to agree on why everyone thinks this article looks like an advertisement, ever since Microsoft payed Wikipedia to change it.
"Microsoft sells computer games that run on Windows PCs, including titles such as Age of Empires, Halo and the Microsoft Flight Simulator series. It produces a line of reference works that include encyclopedias and atlases, under the name Encarta. Microsoft Zone hosts free premium and retail games where players can compete against each other and in tournaments. Microsoft entered the multi-billion-dollar game console market dominated by Sony and Nintendo in late 2001,[35] with the release of the Xbox. The company develops and publishes its own video games for this console, with the help of its Microsoft Game Studios subsidiary, in addition to third-party Xbox video game publishers such as Electronic Arts and Activision, who pay a license fee to publish games for the system. The Xbox also has a successor in the Xbox 360, released on 2005-11-22 in North America and other countries.[36][37] With the Xbox 360, Microsoft hopes to compensate for the losses incurred with the original Xbox. However, Microsoft made some decisions considered controversial in the video gaming community, such as selling two different versions of the system, as well as providing backward compatibility with only particular Xbox titles.[38][39] In addition to the Xbox line of products, Microsoft also markets a number of other computing-related hardware products as well, including mice, keyboards, joysticks, and gamepads, along with other game controllers, the production of which is outsourced in most cases.[5]"LostNecromancer 00:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When did "Microsoft payed Wikipedia to change it"? ffm ✎talk 11:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ad 

message: Microsoft.com is one of the most popular destinations on the Internet, receiving more than 100 million hits per day. According to Alexa.com, Microsoft.com is ranked 13th amongst all websites for Traffic Rank as on March 30, 2007.[88] This is however at least partly attributed to the default settings of Internet Explorer, which sets the initial homepage of Internet Explorer to Microsoft.com.
As far as I know, MSN is the default homepage of Internet explorer, unless you count the redirect? Matt-thepie 16:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Microsoft.com 

message: Why on Earth is it appropriate to have a BSOD screenshot take up space in an article about Microsoft the company, if it is not even appropriate to have it at any of Microsoft Windows, Windows NT, Windows XP, or Windows Vista?  This makes no sense -- if it is deemed necessary to be referenced in any of the main Wiki pages (bearing in mind it has its own dedicated fanpage), it would surely be more appropriate on one of the Windows pages rather than the page about the company itself!  Simxp 01:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its not approperate, Please see Talk:Apple_Inc. for a HUGE AMOUNT of talk about why the Kernal Panic is not approperate for the corperate article.  If a crash screen is inapproperate on one company wiki article, it is inapproperate on antoher.  Anyone else's thoughts?  I think, much like the apple page, any refrence of Windows crashing should be contained in the approperate sections, like the software or its own "Microsoft Technical Concerns" Wiki article, to be kept in line with how the apple article is.--Zeeboid 13:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Changes made according to the president set by other Software OS Manufacture company wiki articles.  thoughts?--Zeeboid 14:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fully agree.  It's got nothing to do with Microsoft the company, unless there's some sort of related info (which would most probably be too weak a link to include anyway).  Keep ditched.  Oh and it's "precedent", not "president"!Smoothy 15:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BSOD 

message: I have added a "" template to the article Lutz Roeder, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy).  You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. 217.50.246.73 19:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Lutz Roeder]] 

message: Could someone make the pictures be side by side, not 4 and then 1 (me + wikicode = not so good) - - Gunnaraztek 06:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo Gallery of MS homepage 

message: "As of November 2006, Microsoft has extended itself to Linux and open source companies to allow Windows server to work harmoniously with servers running Linux."
I think that's a very cloying commentary on the subject, considering the GNU/Linux community reaction to the MS offer, isn't it?  It doesn't sound like NPOV to me.  "Harmoniously" includes finding a loophole in the GPLv2 that is fixed in the GPLv3.  Perhaps an entire section on their patent claims against Linux is necessary, in light of new developments, just like Novell has their own heading:  Novell#Agreement_with_Microsoft Phish0202 01:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "As of November 2006," / "Patent claims against Linux" section 

message: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Microsoft/archive2 was removed from WP:FAR by Joelr31; the article just went through a review, and it would be appropriate to discuss these issues on the talk page and re-approach FAR in a month or so if issues aren't resolved.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Sandy... commented at bit at Talk:Microsoft#Ongoing_problems_with_sources - hopefully it helps people understand a bit. Thanks for your work by the way!  I don't really plan on editing that much at the moment unfortunately due to time constraints but maybe others are curious :). I'll try to do cleanups when I can though; and don't feel bad about delisting as an FA if it doesn't meet your standards - I still think it is pretty good of course but Wikipedia seems to have changed a lot since I last was around much. RN 11:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAR removed 

message: In the first section the quote says to "to ...".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommyhp (talk • contribs) 19:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo 

message: I, per Wikipedia:Criticism, which states the following:
:In general, making separate sections with the title "Criticism" is discouraged.
propose to remove the section entitled "Criticism" and merge the content that presently exists within to sections that are more appropriate and are directly related to the material, to avoid creating an article structure which implies a point of view. I believe this would improve the quality of this article. Please give your opinion, if you care to provide it, so that we may reach consensus on what we should do regarding this issue. Iccdel 02:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Been discussed in the archives several times already.... feel free to take a peek. RN 04:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: As has been noted, WP style says that valid, properly-source criticisms (and God knows there are plenty; we are talking about the Beast That Lies In Redmond) should go in the appropriate parts of the article, not in a separate criticism section. --Orange Mike 13:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if we must start talking expertise, I too am an expert in the IT industry and the business side of it, and I still think a criticism section is lousy. You will notice the writers of GWB left it out altogether, instead sprinkling it throughout, as it would be proper here. Instead, it by nature provides an undue weight to the criticism, even if the criticism is particularly strong. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, any Wikipedia article about something that has been heavily criticized should have that criticism noted in the article, since it pertains to the subject and is a part of it's history.  If an encyclopedia spoke all about Vietnam, but left out all the controversy which surrounded it, it would be a very poor article.  It would seem to me that this article should contain the criticism sprinkled throughout, where it's relevant, just like the article about George W. Bush does.  Microsoft very much needs criticism as the separate page about it is very lengthy, proving that it's a big part of it's history, so a lot of those things should be placed into the main article where appropriate.Yfrwlf (talk) 16:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

text: People can criticize Microsoft on their own time. I personally don't care about people's criticisms. I don't think we need to fill up Wikipedia with things like that. They are available everywhere else on the internet and I don't think we should clog up a RESOURCE with them. Remember, this is a resource, not a rant site. 69.142.233.248 (talk) 19:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Criticism" section 

message: Are portals part of of wikipedia or are they considered external sites? Portal:Microsoft and Portal:Companies are in the 'external links' section. Should they not be in the 'see also' section? Aeons | Talk 08:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like you are right, OpenBSD does this also. The database is locked now so I can't edit it but I will if it isn't changed the next time I look :). RN 06:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portals in external link 

message: Where is Paul Allen in this article? Answer: a single link on the right hand side. As Co-founder of Microsoft it seems Paul deserves more mention than this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.227.29 (talk) 12:21, August 29, 2007 (UTC) 
I don't think he deserves more than that!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arielhit (talk • contribs) 12:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paul Allen 

message: The following statement seems out of place under culture:
Starting around 2005, a blogger claiming to be an employee of Microsoft, dubbing itself Mini-Microsoft, claims that the company has become a "passionless, process-ridden, lumbering idiot," due in part to ineffective management, and calls for the company to be downsized.[48][49]
It does not fit the tone of the rest of the paragraph and might be a better fit with other criticism
:Really the problem was that it way too positive-sounding; i.e. you pointed out that even that somewhat light criticism felt out of place which meant that paragraph was unbalanced. 
:The question I have now is does this proposed paragraph sound too much like an editorial? I specifically tried to avoid this, but any suggestions/comments around this would be great :).
*Analysis differs on the effectiveness of the business culture in modern time. A blogger claiming to be an employee of Microsoft, dubbing itself Mini-Microsoft, became infamous around 2005 as a spot for hundreds of employees of the company to complain about various issues with the company such as lack of transparency. Mini-Microsoft itself claims that the company has become a "passionless, process-ridden, lumbering idiot," due in part to ineffective management, and calls for the company to be downsized. In January 2007, Microsoft scored first in the Harris Interactive/The Wall Street Journal Reputation Quotient survey of corporate reputations. The survey cited strong financial performance from the company along with strong vision & leadership, workplace environment rankings, and the charitable deeds of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
RN 06:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Culture 

message: The current section on business culture reads like an in-company news-letter (advertising for employees). It is of course unencyclopedic - more appropriate for a personal site, or Microsoft's own employee relations. At the very least, we can start by wording it in a more factual manner -  e.g. "in house developers only use microsoft products"  -  which raises the question: are non-microsoft products discouraged? 
Additionally, the line about developers being decision makers is, to say the least, dubious. Economic strategy (e.g. IRR/Oportunity Cost) clearly plays the dominant role in Microsoft's product procurement and development. Laskdfj456 (talk) 00:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  `Business Culture` section unencyclopedic 

message: I think we should add more criticisms about Microsoft. I know it won't look good for their company but what if it's the truth. I belive all views even the bad views (Neutral point of view like in wikipedias guidelines) should be respected not just by all wikipedia members, and even moderators or article change patrollers.
I believe we must debate about if we should add to the Microsoft article about how Microsoft is controlling how many computers you put Windows XP/VISTA on by using Product Activation cause theres proof on that.
What do you all say should we discuss this on the talk page?  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.148.148.27 (talk) 07:06, August 21, 2007 (UTC) 
:That's not a criticism; that's a product feature. (Few, if any, commercial programs allow you to install on an infinite number of computers.) I yield to few in my hatred for the Beast that Lies in Redmond; but this article is not a venue for MS-bashing. --Orange Mike 18:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If people didn't pirate software, we wouldn't have Product Activation. And Product Activation isn't limited to just Microsoft/Windows either. Evils Dark (talk) 00:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To first (unsigned at IP 24.148.148.27) commentor: Since this is an encyclopedia article it should contain no criticisms of Microsoft's work, merely facts regarding their organisation and work.  Therefore the various positive and negative critisms that appear in the article should be deleted and no other critisms should be inserted. This is common policy throughout Wiki. However, facts - whether fortunate or unfortunate for the organisation - should be inserted.  Eg, if it where an indisputable fact that they contributed to some illegal activity in such-and-such a year, that fact should be indeed included.  Or if it were indisputable fact that they have contributed to such-and-such a praisworthy cause throughout their lifetime, that fact too should be included.  Personal opinion on the applicability of a product feature such as Product Activation is irrelevant.  However the fact that many of their products utilise this feature might be relevant, though without any further bias and even then only to highlight limitations of use built into ther systems where these are uniquely relevent to the company in some way.  Jubilee♫clipman 03:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What I think might be appropiate for wikipedia article 

message: I found almost no mention of the the Microsoft Venus project on wikipedia, apart from this: List of computer technology code names#V.
Could someone include it in the appropriate Microsoft article(s)?
Here are some resources:
*http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_44/b3653208.htm
*http://seekingalpha.com/article/12934-microsoft-venus-a-forgotten-failure-in-china
*http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CGN/is_3765/ai_56194774
*Microsoft Venus Google search
Ǣ0ƞS 07:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Microsoft Venus 

message: What is an actual source for this mission statement?  I know MSFT has asserted that this was their "original" vision, but I fail to find any citation before 1985 (I've searched LexisNexis, Google Books, and some other sources).  According to Roy A. Allan's book "A History of the Personal Computer: The People and the Technology", this message was developed by MSFT's marketing people around 1984.  The references actually given after this sentence aren't real references to this point.  The earliest quote I can find is from ComputerWorld.  If Allan is correct, there should be some earlier advertisements.  Anybody have pointers?  --Psm 20:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okidoki, no comments on this, so I'll adjust the intro accordingly (to correctly date the vision to around 1985 rather than 1975).--Psm 19:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  in line with the company's original mission of "a computer on every desk and in every home, running Microsoft software" 

message: There is no information on the Microsoft Wiki page in relation to Microsofts' Media Interests, or who they pay off (like rupard). Nothing about Disney and IBM, or SL acting as Mafia (and thats being nice)
There is Nothing in regards to Print Media and trademark law suits which is supported by Microsoft who included Un-Protected Trademarks in un-addressed junk mail in my country (under licence with Advertisers to Promote products while the same Microsoft seeks anti-spam laws to prevent EPA complaint being sent via e-mails, as if the EPA does anything anyway)
Infact there is little here on what Microsoft has done to the world (a lot of it isn't good, but good for profits - like reselling 3D over and over again until DRM SL)
Nothing about DRM and how Microsoft has used user entered data to extort money, and nothing about the Microsoft cyber squatting web browers redirecting to their own web sites where they show ads.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.54.191.137 (talk) 09:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is the info links to Microsoft Press and other Mafia Members 

message: Needs section on how Microsoft and its syndication partners in 'old press' discredit other internet sites, and to the point of seeking laws. While promoting DRM and other technologies that lock users into Microsoft supported products.
This wiki entry needs links to things like TCN9 showing EBAY TV Ads stating 'how safe we are' compaired with the made-up-boogie-man-under-the-bed.
Nothing in regards to the fact M$ will send Viri files over the wire (illegal in my country) which passes though a ISP selling M$ AV and SL
:Sources? Documentation? Which is "my country"? What are "Viri files"? --Orange Mike 13:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hold on, you're really asking someone who types M$ for unbiased references? *grin* --Blowdart 14:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, I yield to few in my hatred for the Beast which Lies in Redmond. Partisans can be sources of valid information; but that doesn't mean I'll bite for just any old unsourced allegation. --Orange Mike 14:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advertising with Old Media 

message: "...Bill Gates' vision "to get a workstation running our software onto every desk and eventually in every home".[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]"
"...marketing MS-DOS to manufacturers of IBM-PC clones, Microsoft rose from a small player to one of the major software vendors in the home computer industry.[21][22]>[23][24][25][26][27] The company expanded into new markets with the release of the Microsoft Mouse in 1983, as well as a publishing division named Microsoft Press.[19]"
Is all that necessarily? I would think two or three should do. This is a FA. Rocket000 12:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not exactly a fan of such referencing. While it is a feature article, surely seven or eight sources in succession is overkill if they all say essentially the same thing or are referring to a specific quote?--Rcandelori 14:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did that on things that are likely to nitpicked to death, thus ensuing lots of pointless talkpage babble :). Feel free to trim the sources down to what you folks think are best. RN 22:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  Isn't the quote wrong anyway? "A computer on every desk and in every home, running Microsoft software." is the original mission statement. Anonymous 9:39, 08 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In-line citations 

message: There was a mention in the article of "FirstMention.com" in a context that was clearly an attempted plug. There was no link, and the website name was mentioned seperately and was in bold text.
Qc 19:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed advertisement 

message: The section entitled "2007 EU antitrust €497 million fine" under History was misplaced and/or inappropriately labelled. It's inappropriate to have that as an entire section of the history (especially when the Vista section specifically says "present"), and even then, something without the specifics of the deal would be a better header. Paliku 22:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was of the same view, but I would not have removed it altogether. The separate title should have been removed and the remaining paragraphs added to the 2005-present section. I actually changed it to 497 million euros rather than $613 million due to volatile foreign exchange rates making the US dollar figure unreflective of the actual amount fined. --Rcandelori 05:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose so, and I agree somewhat. It is just kind of tricky because the case spans two timelines already with two different judgements and I don't think it should span too much on this page because European_Union_Microsoft_antitrust_case handles most of it. Maybe something along the lines of "Due to failure to comply with the first judgement, another one was handed down" etc. so it makes it apparent that it is indeed a continuation from the first one. RN 22:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With the recent €899 million fine the total is now €1.68 billion which seems mentioning worthy to me, also because it's the highest fine ever given by the EU to a company.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kegher (talk • contribs) 10:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I have added details of the 497 million euro and 899 million euro fines. Given their record-breaking size, it would be irresponsible for the encyclopaedia to not include this information.--Rcandelori (talk) 03:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  EU fine 

message: Apparently, one of the editors feels there should be a top-level section entitled Microsoft.com, which consists entirely of Alexa rankings for the domain. If there's going to be a section about online services and dealings, I'm all for it - but the section as it currently stands is unacceptable. Aside from being given unnecessary weight, featured articles are discouraged from having single-paragraph sections. Paliku 23:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really, it should be in another section in the article (not the lead since leads aren't supposed to contain new information). I'm just not sure where, but it should definately go SOMEWHERE in my opinion. RN 22:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alexa 

message: Why don't you guys have an article on Microsoft.com? It's one of the most popular websites on the internet and alot more popular than some of the other websites you have articles on. Check out these Alexa ratings,
*Microsoft.com - 17
*Home of the Underdogs - 35,259
*MemphisRap.com - 169,363
*Oyez.org - 169,455
*MLB.com - 381
*Naukri.com - 622
216.103.196.1 (talk) 03:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect it is that "popular" only because there are millions of computers updating their software from that site every now and then. With the site of an OS monopoly, what do you expect? Furthermore, does the site merit an article merely because it has a high rank on Alexa? - Redmess (talk) 08:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What Gives? 

message: How in the world has this page lasted so long without mentioning the vast amount of SERVER technology that helps the world spin?  I mean even NASDAQ uses MS SQL 2005 for their databases.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.9.27.149 (talk) 00:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What Gives? - More 

message: It's unclear to me why an entire long paragraph is dedicated to a lawsuit against Microsoft in the Philippines.  As much or more text is dedicated to this single lawsuit than to the European Union's anti-trust findings and the resolution (which included the creation of a new SKU of Windows).  As I understand it, large technology companies are sued very frequently and I see no particular reason for this lawsuit to be described in this encyclopedia article.  I propose that the paragraph be removed. Npdoty (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed... I've removed the paragraph.  People are certainly welcome to contribute to Wikinews if they are interested in writing about news events such as a group filing a lawsuit.   -/- Warren 00:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philippine legal issue 

message: Refering to "2006–present: Vista and other transitions"
At the very end it says:
 On 1st February, 2008, Microsoft made an unsolicited bid to purchase the fully diluted outstanding shares of Yahoo for up to $44.6 billion,[47] following the company's struggle against rival search-engine company, Google, though this offer was later rejected on the 10th.
It is February 9th so it is impossible that on February 10th the offer was rejected.
Please anyone with the power to edit the article, delete or get a fiable source.
Pakitos (talk) 18:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  2006–present: Vista and other transitions 

message: MSX. Marc Mongenet (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing link in article 

message: M$ needs to be mentioned somewhere. Today, it is a very well-known abbreviation of Microsoft that has been used  zillions of times (well, almost if ) on forums, blogs and personal websites about computing, software, hardware, games et.c. PCWorld, pcguide, macworld, ubuntu forums is some of the best examples. It should not be mentioned in the intro, but perhaps in the criticism section of the article. What do you think? M$ and Micro$oft are used to emphasize the allegation that Microsoft has business practices that focus on making money rather than producing good products, if this happened to be something you have never heard of before. Soccers08 (talk) 15:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This can be reasonably mentioned and linked in the appropriate section of the Criticism of Microsoft article. Dcoetzee 20:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  M$ 

message: Could there be a section about who owns Microsoft and in what proportions? (Sorry if I've missed it somewhere)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.144.251.120 (talk) 04:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ownership 

message: Microsoft was realy founded by Andrew Moore, not Bill Gates. He is just the front man.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.133.94 (talk) 19:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  other origin theories 

message: There should be a list of the founders of this very recent start-up company that has become one of the world's biggest in about 30 years!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.151.191 (talk) 10:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There were only two founders: Bill Gates and Paul Allen. — Wenli (reply here) 02:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Founders 

message: No mention of the failed (and hilarious) Microsoft Bob!
Please add mention of it!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Panarchy (talk • contribs) 08:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You can find it at the detailed History of Microsoft which was spun off from this article, or at List of Microsoft software applications, and of course it has its own article as well.  There is no need to add mention of every single product here. Kuru talk 12:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Microsoft Bob 

message: Wow, no mention of Microsoft's "Naked PC" campaign, either.  They used it as justification for them making agreements with most all consumer PC retailers to only carry Windows, and to have Windows installed on all computers, and to not have an option to get a computer without Windows.  This is part of their license agreement with these companies if they are to receive Microsoft's retail discount for Windows.  This is extremely important, as it takes away the ability for consumers to put on a different operating system without paying for Windows, and is a blatant attempt at market dominance.  By removing that option for consumers, it also shrouds the price from them that Windows costs the retailer.  Thus, consumers can't see the "special discount", which has always been far cheaper than buying Windows directly off the shelf, and thus cannot see the money they would be saving by not buying it off the shelf and cannot see this discount business practice directly.  In most all stores in the U.S. today, you cannot buy a PC without Windows, even if you ask for it to be removed or for the license to be rejected and for a refund.  In France and the EU in general, I don't have all the links, but I know this has been challenged several times.  In places where someone was able to get a refund for Windows, it has been very difficult to say the very least, and takes arguing with customer service representatives for hours.  There has been a lot of news coverage of this, like Microsoft getting China to ban "naked PCs", and at one time Microsoft had a Naked PC website, which has since been removed, with a picture of a freezing naked man on a beach no less.  If someone could add some more references to all of the happenings about this topic, and add it to the main page, that would be great.Yfrwlf (talk) 17:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Naked" PCs 

message: This is mentioned on many other pages and i think it should be mentioned on the main microsoft page, that they have been caught offering money to wikipedia members to edit wikipedia articles with a bias towards microsoft, see http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16775981/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xavierorr (talk • contribs) 11:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It shouldn't be mentioned because that isn't what happened. WillOakland (talk) 02:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WillOakland; your reference...? Anoko moonlight (talk) 12:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Here. WillOakland (talk) 19:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering your reference, your objection is that they did not say "with a bias towards Microsoft"? I agree, they did not ask to edit the article with a bias, just to improve it. It remains noteworthy that they did contract the guy to edit Wikipedia. Anoko moonlight (talk) 21:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

text: In the whole span of Microsoft's history, no, not particularly noteworthy. The story ran its course in a week and most of that attention was based on misreprentations on various blogs. WillOakland (talk) 20:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. Anoko moonlight (talk) 20:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Microsoft offering money to people to edit wikipedia in their favour 

message: + List of Microsoft codenames in See also -> Lists  —Preceding unsigned comment added by FxJ (talk • contribs) 15:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add 

message: Dear fellow contributors
MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this. 
There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:
Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. Does anyone object if I remove it from the main text (using a script) in a few days’ time on a trial basis? The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 06:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to remove date-autoformatting 

message: What about to include some facts from Microsofts 2008 ANNUAL REPORT? Cnet comments it...--Kozuch (talk) 10:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Microsofts 2008 Annual Report 

message: Large parts of this article would more appropriately go into an outlet for marketing or in a community user group.
There are notable elements missing; and there is much on that which is un-notable or subjective.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablablob (talk • contribs) 23:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unencyclopedic 

message: The first sentence of the second paragraph of the "1975–1985: Founding" section under the History section of the article states: "On August 12, 1981, after negotiations with Digital Research failed, IBM awarded a contract to Microsoft to provide a version of the CP/M operating system, which was set to be used in the upcoming IBM Personal Computer (PC)."  This cannot be correct.  August 12, 1981 was in fact the date that IBM introduced the Personal Computer (model 5150).  Therefore, IBM must have contracted with Microsoft prior to that date, since it is impossible that IBM could have shipped PC-DOS version 1.0 on 5.25" floppy disks with the PC on the same day that they contracted with MS to produce it, nor could MS have have had even an MS-DOS source code listing ready to give to IBM on the same day the contract was made.  As many sources will attest, Bill Gates only began work to develop 86-DOS into PC-DOS after he and his associates had made a deal with IBM; thereafter, IBM was heavily involved (administratively) with Microsoft in the customization of 86-DOS for the PC.  MS bought all rights to 86-DOS in July of 1981, after much of this work had been done.  If some contract relating to MS/PC-DOS was signed on the day IBM introduced the PC, it was only a formality and not significant in plotting the history of either company; at that point IBM had no other choice.  I found no mention if August 12, 1981 in association with the IBM - MS deal in any other Wikipedia article about MS-DOS, nor in any of a few other web references about the early history of DOS found through Google.
(Microsoft also provided to IBM a port of Microsoft BASIC for the PC's ROM, in a manner similar to the way they had ported BASIC for many other microcomputers of the late 1970s and early 1980s after the Altair 8800.)
This error has apparently been standing at least since August 12th of this year (ironically and/or coincidentally).  (I didn't look past the first history page for the article.)  Would someone please correct this?  To simply delete the errant date of contract would suffice, but it might be nice to revise the paragraph in order to mention Microsoft's full purchase of 86-DOS in July of 1981.
71.242.27.236 (talk) 08:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual Error 

message: On the information pane Craig Mundie is listed as the CRSO, while he is the CSO. The WikiLink goes to CSO, but the text is incorrect. --CraSH (talk) 23:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo: CSO not CRSO [Craig Mundie (CRSO)] 

message: This article has been gutted and destroyed since it's FAR last year, which left it looking like this.  I suggest a revert to that version, and clean up from there, and a WP:FAR is needed to reevaluate the featured status of this article.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAR needed 

message: http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/greener-electronics-guide-nov2008 
That is the latest rating from Greenpeace, I don't know how to create a reference thing.
Microsoft is still the 2nd worst but has improved their rating from 2.2 to 2.9.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.185.225.86 (talk) 15:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greenpeace rating 

message: This article should be demoted from featured status because it has too many cleanup tags (see the criteria for featured articles). Something has to be done about this or else the article should be demoted.
Topology Expert (talk) 14:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demoted 

message: Can someone update the market cap number to reflect the stock price drop in the past 6 months? I am pretty sure it's no longer $230 billion  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.231.131.236 (talk) 07:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Market Cap 

message: are they working on a new one thats what some people are saying      DCsniper207 (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Xbox 

message: I can't find anything on the "reality" of Mirosoft in the article -  Where, precisely are they?  i.e what is their address?  I have quickly looked for head offices of other large organisations either such as Exxon or BP but I could not find addressesthese either.  Why are these not published here?
Big IT companies (NOT big companies generally) however generally choose not to publish their addresses.  Go to the BP or ExxonMobil websites and I'm sure you will find their corpoate hedqarter's details and even telephone numbers.   
It is clear enough why IT companies like M$ and Google should choose to hide their location.  Presumably it is to avoid being deluged with mail.  But the question is surely: "why should they NOT be deluged with mail?".  If their customers were happy bunnies, able to get the info they needed at the touch of a button, as the ads suggest is normal in the world of IT, then they wouldn't want to write in or visit.  The reason M$ and others are deluged with contact requests is clear.  Their products are very poor quality, do not match their description, fail to operate as described, etc.  Why should it be considered at all reasonable that their customers complain forcibly to them?  Isn't this legitimate?  In the short term such contact may slow down the fall of prices or even push them up but on the other hand it would drive more competitiona dn better quality longer lasting more suitable and fit for purpose products.  Currently the big boys can use their monopolistic mscles to smother any challengers.
sincerely
LookingGlass (talk) 13:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geographic location - addresses 

message: I dont know if this is mentioned in the article, but Microsoft is planning to open its own retail store, similar to the Apple Store. I saw this a few hours ago on G4TV, so I dont know if thats a reliable source. I'd say G4 is, since its a TV channel devoted to technology. - 97.102.154.152 (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See the section on "2006–present: Vista and other transitions". Kuru talk 18:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Microsoft stores 

message: I have created a Microsoft Store page so anyone who could help build it will be appreciated  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldprofile (talk • contribs) 21:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Microsoft Store page 

message: Self explanatory, all this has is some info on history,products, ect. when pages about software companies that are'nt pursuasive get deleted. its making me think, do companies need awards to have a reliable wikipedia page? if not, pray tell. because i've spent nearly an hour making a wiki page on a software company, that WAS reliable, with all reliable links, ect, and it got deleted. did i mention that the software company used for the page did'nt have any awards?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Derynj1 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Significance?