Talk:Microsoft/Archive 1

message: I commented out the code displaying the Microsoft logo entered several days ago by another user. It reeks to me of advertising. Do any other users share my views? -- Viajero 13:20, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: There are other companies that have their logos in the wikipedia pages, like Sony, Philips, IBM, etc. I don't think it's advertising, it's just the symbol associated with the company.
I agree with the above. Advertising is more like including: "Microsoft has a range of products for all your business needs. For more information, see http://www.microsoft.com/ or contact your local reseller." Now, the issue of whether or not we should include fair use images is another matter... -- Stephen Gilbert 05:40, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Microsoft logo: appropriate here? 

message: Microsoft recently reorganized its 7 business units into 3. This section needs new attention.
JesterWiki 09:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done :) Ryan Norton T | @ | C 00:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Business Organization 

message: I saw a point from someone about being bold in edits... so I went out on a ledge and tried to structure this page better. * Got rid of linux/opensource since its discussed in the controversy page
* Get rid of some nasty rumors, like "Gates was rumored to have chanted things like "DOS isn't done till Lotus won't run" as the teams developed DOS and Excel."
* Changed the structure a bit to match the IBM page
* Moved Microsofts Future section to current business activities and adjusted appropriately
* other misc cleanups
Please feel free to edit any of this if you feel it is wrong... but please keep it NPOV.  Thanks
RN 24 July 2005
OK, as you can see I did some more work here... I moved the criticism section to see also among other things.  I really think its a lot better now... A little short now, however...  some facts and trivia and projects would be REALLY neat (like what about the deal they are doing with the govt to do with vehicals or something?  Anyway...).  There still are some POV issues in the history section (also somehow the last sentence in the OS/2 to Windows section doesn't seem to fit [the bit about the windows kernel].
Anyway, hope you like my edits
--RN 07:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure cleanup 

message: These pages seem extremely biased... here some suggestions -
Monopoly/Legal issues/Linux Open Source etc. should really all be merged with
controversy -  as they all are pretty much controversy.  Not only that but they should really be moved to seperate pages... 
On the Legal Issues side, I'd really like to see a lot more on why the  Thomas Penfield Jackson suit was reversed.... it barely dwells on the idea by stating that they proposed a settlement with the justice department (WHAT settlement?).
Maybe Linux etc. should be mentioned more from a historical perspective like they are on the AppleComputer page and not in a headline... RN
: What are you refering to about Apple Computer  ? There doesn't seem to be a single occurence of the word "linux" in this article... Rama 07:32, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why Linux is mentioned at all in a Microsoft article boggles the mind, save that crap for the Linux page or a separate article --Rain 00:36, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks go to those who cleaned the page up a bit... I still think the linux part should be incorporated into a yearly history thing like the Apple Computer page or just removed.  Basically just making this so its more like the Linux page for instance - which is pretty much nothing but praise... here its very much the opposite in my respects...  OT but I also did a cleanup of this page so that the headings are correct for the TOC and the TOC goes at the top -- RN 04:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias issues 

message: Shouldn't there be a link to Common criticisms of Microsoft in the "See Also" section?
:No, because it's already linked from Controversy, above. - Brian Kendig 21:57, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to common criticisms?