|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jim Allchin article.|
|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.|
|WikiProject Biography||(Rated Start-class)|
|WikiProject United States||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors|
Was Cairo really a replacement for Windows NT or was this sentence worded incorrectly?
- Showstopper! by G. Pascal Zachary, page 148: "He saw the Cairo project as the successor to NT..."
- Breaking Windows by David Banks, page 49: "Gates put Allchin in charge of Microsoft's most ambitious project ever, a future successor to NT code-named Cairo."
- Is this enough? AlistairMcMillan 14:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
- Here's the text of the section:
During the United States v. Microsoft antitrust trial, emails sent by Allchin to other Microsoft executives were entered as evidence by the government lawyers to back up their claim that the integration of Internet Explorer and Windows was more to do with their competition with Netscape Communications Corporation than innovation.
In 1991, Allchin was cited as saying, "We need to slaughter Novell before they get stronger."
In August 1998, Allchin asked an engineer named Vinod Valloppillil to analyse the threat to the Windows platform from the open source movement and the Linux operating system. Valloppillil wrote two memos that were intended for Senior Vice-President Paul Maritz (at the time, the most senior executive after Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer). Both memos leaked and became known as the Halloween documents.
On September 29 1998, Allchin was deposed to respond to the testimony of Professor Edward Felten. He later testified in court from February 1 to February 4 1999. Most of his testimony centered around video-taped demonstrations that were exhibited in Microsoft's defense, and later found to have been falsified.
In May 2002, Allchin testified before Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly during the settlement hearing between Microsoft and the nine states and the District of Columbia, resulting from the United States v. Microsoft antitrust trial. Allchin was called to testify on two issues, however it was the first that gained the most publicity. In relation to the issue of sharing technical API and protocol information used throughout Microsoft products, which the states were seeking, Allchin alleged that releasing this information would increase the security risk to consumers.
- "It is no exaggeration to say that the national security is also implicated by the efforts of hackers to break into computing networks. Computers, including many running Windows operating systems, are used throughout the United States Department of Defense and by the armed forces of the United States in Afghanistan and elsewhere."
In May 2004, Judge J. Frederick Motz ordered Microsoft to investigate Burst.com's claim that, in 2000, Allchin ordered Microsoft employees to destroy email after 30 days and not to archive their email, suggesting that this deletion policy might be an effort to eliminate material that would later be damaging in court. This case was settled out of court in March 2005, with Microsoft agreeing to pay Burst.com $60 million for nonexclusive rights to Burst.com's media player software.
- It's unlikely that any of these points is untrue, but please source and add as appropriate; this is the bio of a living person. -- «klaus»
- Here is more clearcut "controversy", in my opinion:
Quoted from Dr. John at KickAss Gear (copyrighted)
"...Brad Silverberg, the Microsoft exec who had been responsible for Windows 95, emailed Jim Allchin (now Senior Vice President of MS) on September 27th 1991: "after IBM announces support for dr-dos at comdex, it's a small step for them to also announce they will be selling netware lite, maybe sometime soon thereafter. but count on it. We don't know precisely what ibm is going to announce. my best hunch is that they will offer dr-dos as the preferred solution for 286, os 2 2.0 for 386. they will also probably continue to offer msdos at $165 (drdos for $99). drdos has problems running windows today, and I assume will have more problems in the future."
- It's not clear to me why the above was removed-the reason given in the article history is that it was a "rant" -well heck it's largely a direct quote of Allchin, which he can dispute if he wants. The rest of that removal is the fairly neutral language that Dr. John couched the quote in. Is there something not elevated enough in the name of the source, "kickass gear"? Is that why it is considered it a rant? That seems absurd to me, but if an editor has a problem with the offcolor word "kickass", then it's up to him or her find an alternate source, which surely exists.
The situation with Burst is quite confusing and it should be removed. The facts are hard to figure out. It is hard to show what was really said and just having pieces reprinted is insuffient to warrant inclusion. Burst sued Microsoft. Burst sued Apple. Burst now has a dispute with Real. Please read their web site. After reading it I think you will agree with me that this section should be deleted. Irpac (talk) 18:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
"controversies" section is far from that
This whole article reads like an advertisement for Jim Allchin. It's a total vanity piece likely authored by Allchin himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 09:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)