Talk:Microsoft/Archive 2

message: I have the feeling that this article is not entirely un-biased :). Ofcourse there should be information about the 'bad' side of Microsoft - I simply loved the 'public perception' part, it was like reading a history book 100 years from now (unless M$ will get world domination :)). However, sometimes I think it is a bit overdone, even though I'm no particular Microsoft-lover myself. The 'the future' section for example starts out with putting up quite a case for open source software, and I do not think that is what this topic is about. It is difficult, I understand, to find a good balance between pro-Microsoft and anti-Microsoft, but I think it's balancing a bit towards the latter. Not nessecarily bad, on the other hand I'm not sure if that's good either. Grauw 16:56, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  More bias issues 

message: the microsith.com link is dead - I'll remove it but I'm leaving this comment here in case it was a temporary server 'outage' --Krupo 01:00, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  dead link 

message: I dispute the section of the article which touts Microsoft's ease of use as a revolutionary concept or as one which continues to this day. Yes, I think the common interface, backwards compatibility, and interconnectedness helped Microsoft in its early years, but these days such things are common. In this day and age, Microsoft is being widely criticized for having a user interface which is inconsistent and overly complicated, requiring an additional layer of "wizards" to handle it. Countless books (such as "Windows for Dummies") and web sites (such as Annoyances.org) are dedicated to helping people make sense of Microsoft interface confusion. I think it's silly and POV to say that Microsoft's position ... can be completely traced to better serving the customer needs because it's well known that its position has MUCH to do with predatory practices and FUD. I also dispute the section which begins Critics claim that the apparent simplicity of the products... because I don't know anyone who's used Microsoft software for very long and would still say that it has "apparent simplicity." I think this section of the article is POV and needs some serious balancing. Brian Kendig 03:51, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Ease of use" 

message: Although this statement is frequently made, I wonder how much truth there is in it.
I was puzzled by some problems and limitations with Microsoft Visual SourceSafe, and with its apparently lack of continuing development, with few recent updates. I've given up on ever getting branches and the merge feature to work in a reasonable way. On asking around and doing some Web searches, a frequent "explanation" is that ClearCase is the predominant source management tool used within Microsoft and that Visual SourceSafe is not, in fact, used much. I don't work for Microsoft so I can't say whether or not this is true and, if true, I don't know whether it's an anomaly. Dpbsmith 01:00, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe Sourcesafe is one of only a few exceptions to the "dog food" policy. I've heard that most products do get used internally, such as Office betas, Windows, and even Visual Studio. I read an excellent blog entry by an employee explaining the issue with using SourceSafe (it's completely inadequate). I couldn't find the blog but it confirmed that most products do get used internally, with betas spreading out to less technical users as testing progresses. Rhobite 01:06, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: Sourcesafe is the primary exception - mainly because we all know it's worthless. The source control tools used by Microsoft are proprietary (and unfortunately rather antiquated). Dogfooding is a big deal though; we're strongly encouraged to dogfood just about every office application and service pack we could reasonably use on a daily basis, and to upgrade to cutting edge versions constantly, mainly as a method for improving quality. Deco 21:27, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do Microsoft programmers really "eat their own dog food?" 

message: I'm looking for financial info about the company, and more specifically:
* How much of the company's income comes from sales of Windows and Office?
* What is the profit rate for Windows and Office?
Gu@k@ 00:14, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Financial information 

message: I deleted much bias out of this article. If you need an example of how to write an unbiased article about a large business please see IBM. See also NPOV. See also Common criticisms of Microsoft For the compare view of the changes i've made see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Microsoft&diff=0&oldid=4600851
----
*If you're gonna say flatly that a court found Microsoft guilty of anti-trust monopolies, then you also have to tell something about the outcome and whether this finding is relevant or not.
For instance, if you write about the old Standard Oil Company, it isn't enough to write: "Standard Oil was found guilty of illegal monopolies.  Period.  End of statement.  New Paragraph."
You have to add something like: "As a result of this judgment, Standard Oil was broken up into 12 competing units, Standard Oil of New York, Standard Oil of New Jersey, Standard Oil of California.  Etc. etc."
The same with an article about Philip Morris.  You could write: "Philip Morris has been found guilty of many offenses involving the sale of cigarettes and has been ordered to pay hundreds of billions of dollars."  That's true, of course.  But what you have to add is that many of these judgments have been subsequently reduced, or completely thrown out, or are under appeal, and that up to this point Philip Morris has not paid any of these hundreds of billions.
The same is true with Microsoft.  Sure, the court in Baltimore found them guilty -- but Microsoft then appealed and a lot of Motz's judgment was thrown out.  Microsoft then negotiated settlements with the Justice Department and most of the states.  To the satisfaction of Microsoft.  Have you noticed today that because they have negotiated successful settlements that  they now feel that they can pay out $35 billion dollars in a one-time dividend to its stockholders, the largest payout in corporate history?
I'm not saying that future judgments against Microsoft may not affect its operation -- I'm just saying that a bald statement about them being guilty of something isn't enough.
Many large companies, in fact most of them, are constantly in lawsuits with one person or another, or one government agency or another.  They pay fines from time to time.  Or change their way of doing business.  But it's not enough just to say about them that they were found guilty of something.  You gotta tell the reader what the consequences of this were.Hayford Peirce 17:21, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this. The Bush DOJ made it clear that they didn't want to continue aggressive litigation and most states went along with this. The antitrust settlements haven't really affected Microsoft's business although they have placed restrictions on Microsoft's software, mostly the ability to use other software than what's bundled with Windows. Rhobite 17:26, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)
*The lead article on page 1 of today's New York Times was the Microsoft dividend. Later in the article they go on to say, paraphrasing Microsoft's general counsel, I believe: "On June 30, a federal appeals court handed Microsoft a convincing victory in ending its domestic antitrust problems, upholding the settlement the company reached with the government two years ago."
*New para in the story: "The company has also resolved three-quarters of the state class-actions file, Mr. Smith said.  The company's appeal of a $603 million fine the European Commission imposed in March is still pending, 'but at least we have a better sense of the known risk,' Mr. Connors said."Hayford Peirce 18:19, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: I made an attempt to do so; I removed the first sentence (Some of these products were successful, and some were not.) and moved the last (about Microsoft Bob) to "Other offerings." - Brian Kendig 20:44, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on the above