Talk:Microsoft

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)

When editing and wikifying please remember to Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context

Potential bias, "Working with Microsoft", et. al

I'm not an expert in this field but by often reading news and backgrounds on Microsoft and seeing how the IT world is being mostly negatively influenced by Microsofts business strategies and technical development, I find the tone of this article being slightly disturbing. To give some examples: the introduction reads 'One commentator notes that Microsoft's original mission was "a computer on every desk and in every home, running Microsoft software"—it is a goal near fulfillment' which makes it sound like Microsoft is the cause of the current popularity of the desktop computers. The "Working at Microsoft" section sounds like it has been copied from a brochure (it starts with noting the 100% gay friendly rating - how relevant is that?) For many people, Microsoft is the prototype of a power-abusing monopolist corporation and I think this status does not get enough attention in the article. I must note that my viewpoint may be different than that of most North-Americans, as I live in Europe and Microsoft probably has a better reputation in the USA because big corporations can be the "pride" of a country, while for other countries / continents foreign empire-corporations may automatically be seen in a negative light. Still, trying to see things as objective as possible, I think the article is positively biased. CheesePlease NL 12:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

"This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Microsoft article.This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." PLEASE keep your comments about IMPROVING the article. You were right about the "Working with Microsoft" section though... I've tweaked it a bit. I still think it could use some more tweaking/trimming - any suggestions?RN 16:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you and I will focus on improving the article in the future. The reason I am stating my concerns is that articles like this are being closely monitored and edited by the parties involved (Microsoft in this case has a bad reputation as they are already known for paying people to edit wikipedia). Its unbiasedness is thus something that should be closely watched at all time, not just by me, but by anyone reviewing or editing this article. CheesePlease NL 22:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

CheesePlease, if you are so concerned about the biased nature of this article, please take your own advice and keep your opinions off of the talk page. (MaytrixInk)

I'm a bit upset by the biting reaction to this comment. It offered specific criticisms of the article which received no response - the post was not bashing the subject. It's certainly important to recognize for example that Microsoft was not solely responsible for the fulfillment of "a computer on every desk." Let's please give everyone the benefit of the doubt. Dcoetzee 11:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is it other companies are erased because of advertising? When this page is a blatent advertisement for microsoft? Who did the pay off or maybe they own Wiki. We do not even have the opportunity to edit or erase. What is up with that? Can you say favortism. --Ald69talk

"Criticism" section

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)

Been discussed in the archives several times already.... feel free to take a peek. RN 04:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I hate criticism sections too but Microsoft needs one.--68.173.177.238 02:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

Portals in external link

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)

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)

Paul Allen

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)

Culture

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)

Weasel words

Around the picture of Windows Vista, the caption "Windows Vista had major changes, mostly notable within its interface." is strictly true (front-end changes are always more "notable" than other changes by their nature), but implies that this change to interface was the most notable change and that other changes in the operating system were therefore inferior, which is misleading.

Edit of the article by Microsoft Corp

Edit of the article Microsoft by an address IP who is owned by Microsoft Corp : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1186094 with the address IP 207.46.228.16 = OrgName:Microsoft Corp 80.32.246.17 01:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

perhaps you might catch a clue that microsoft is also a network provider. have you heard of msn.net? sheesh. Anastrophe 01:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it certainly appears to be one of the corporate IPs. I have no idea why any one would care; it was not only four years ago, but it was reverted in the very next edit. Is there a point to this posting? Kuru ^talk 02:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

editing by IP's 'associated with' the subject of an article are not proof of malfeasance. nor are they notable per wikipedia's notability guidelines (unless they were to be so significant that they were reported by a reliable source such as a reputable news organization). wikipedia cannot be a reference for wikipedia, and that's what your edits are. they also constitute original research. so, quite simply, there's zero valid basis for adding that information to the article. Anastrophe 02:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't give only a reference, I also give the source of the Edit. You know that it's important to give the source of a text. For you Anastrophe, is it the same to have an edit by an user who doesn't edit from an address IP who is owned by MS (yes this is true that the user can be a simple trainee unpaid in MS) and one who does ? Yes ? sheesh. And these other links who follow, « c'est du poulet ? » : always each organization who edits an article who talks about this… organization :

• 199.233.178.253 : edit.
• 170.189.193.3 : edit
• 208.223.173.65 : edit
• 193.25.125.14 : edit
• more edits on wired.com.

the edits are clearly biased ,althought i disagree blocking them. the edits have been replaced by something more objective anyway. (note that the whole free software vs microsoft thing was far from beeing an good article anyway) -- aep

80.32.246.17 02:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

familiarize yourself with wikipedia's policies first. then we can have a discussion. Anastrophe 02:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Which policies : « This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. » I talk about an Edit. « Be polite » I'm. « Assume good faith » I'm not evil. « No personal attacks » I don't attack an user. « Be welcoming » I began my subject in your profile by « Dear Anastrophe » and finished it by « sincerely yours ». « No original research » It's not unpublished facts ! « Neutral point of view » I only give the proof of an action. I don't say if it is good or bad. I let people have their own point of view. « Verifiability » I give the links and the way to link informations together. Is there a policy that I don't follow ? Thanks, 80.32.246.17 03:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have missed my question - why do we care about an addition which was promptly and completely reverted four years ago? You seem to be failing to look at the impact of those edits. Kuru ^talk 03:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I'm tired. At home it's 5:30 am and I didn't sleep of all the night with this story. And I'm more tired to read the same facts here : Talk:Occidental_Petroleum#Criticisms.2C_Scandals.2C_Controversies. And always the same way to change the subject in each 'Talk' : « do you follow the policies ? » 80.32.246.17 03:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

To answer to your question : it was done 31 July 2007 for this one. And the others are not protected like Microsoft. It's easier to resume : we could protect the articles who are by address IP who are owned by the corporation. Thanks, 80.32.246.17 03:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Kuru, I guess this is the kind of crap we're going to have to put up with now that that "Wikipedia Scanner" tool has shown up. I guess people are hoping to dig up "dirt" for whatever reason. The anonymous IP above is welcome to find something far more interesting and useful to contribute to the encyclopedia than pointing out a single, relatively uncontroversaial edit from four years ago that has no bearing on the article as it stands today. This is an encyclopedia, not a witch-hunt. -/- Warren 03:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

(written in response to 80.32.246.17's last post) you're making egregious assumptions. for one, WP:AGF. an edit by an IP address 'owned by' whatever corporation is not inherently wrong or suspect. it may be, but we cannot assume that it inherently is. if you look at the edit history for that one freaking edit on this article that came from an IP of microsoft, you'll also see that it was the only edit of microsoft they made, the rest being banal edits to other articles dealing with the northwest united states. you're assuming bad faith. Anastrophe 03:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Si, si. This is just turning into a general rant on COI edits to other pages now. This one is an utter non-issue. Please find an appropriate talk page to vent and keep to the topic here: improving the MS article. Perhaps Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest, WP:AN or one of the village pump flavors would be a better place for your concerns? Kuru ^talk 03:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

To Anastrophe : OK that's right. I just see a possible "hole" (sorry my level in English is low) in WP : don't block anonymous users who use an address IP from a corporation (different with one who rents IP addresses). 80.32.246.17 04:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

that would still violate good faith. just because an edit comes from an IP owned by XYZ corporation does not mean that edit was sanctioned, condoned, or even encouraged by that corporation. It's just as likely that someone from XYZ corporation could post information detrimental to XYZ corporation if they had a 'grudge' or grievance of some kind with the company. furthermore, with the general state of information (in)security in large corporations, it's also possible for someone to use someone else's computer at XYZ corporation to post obviously detrimental information or whatever, with the goal to implicate the other employee. you just can't make assumptions of intent based upon an IP being owned by XYZ corporation. edits will stand or fall on their own merit or lack thereof. Anastrophe 04:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

To Kuru : OK This is my last post here. Thanks for your answers. 80.32.246.17 04:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

What I think might be appropiate for wikipedia article

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) (and please sign your posts)

Microsoft Venus

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)

in line with the company's original mission of "a computer on every desk and in every home, running Microsoft software"

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)

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)

Needs to be added to page

Someone needs to merge the info at this site into this article: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/files/Albuquerque%20Tribune%20-%20When%20Microsoft%20Was%20Local.htm

Where is the info links to Microsoft Press and other Mafia Members

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)

Advertising with Old Media

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)

Hold on, you're really asking someone who types M$ for unbiased references? *grin* --Blowdart 14:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

In-line citations

"...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)

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)

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)

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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.16.37 (talk)

Removed advertisement

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)

Microsoft Expression Studio

Expression Studio is a new product line, why is it not mentioned under Products? It does not fall under developer tools.

EU fine

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)

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)

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)

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)

Alexa

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)

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)

What Gives?

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)

What Gives? - More

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)

Pictures of RedWest

While working at RedWest, I took some pictures of this beautiful campus. In my opinion, it's pretty hard to make it looks ugly -- but unfortunately, the photographer for the article has accomplished that quite successfuly. Please review some of my pictures and think about postimg them instead of the current RedWest pictures (section "Business culture").

I suggest you to review the following:

• http://abcpp.us/picture.asp?picture=IMG_0374_0_2_31.jpg&gallery=redwest%20at%20night
• http://abcpp.us/picture.asp?picture=IMG_0330_27_28_29.jpg&gallery=redwest%20at%20night
• http://abcpp.us/picture.asp?picture=IMG_0181.jpg&gallery=autumn
• http://abcpp.us/picture.asp?picture=IMG_0240.jpg&gallery=autumn

Thanks in advance! Andrew Abcpp (talk) 06:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with your statement that the images are "ugly". The buildings are more interesting then the nature around the buildings, and there is only one picture required/relevant to show the surrounding environment in the article. Your second image might replace the current one, because it looks even better, but otherwise no more images are required I think. You'll have to put your images under cc-license and upload them to do so. Anoko moonlight (talk) 19:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, Anoko. I did upload the second image and put it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cafeteria_Way_at_Redmond_West.jpg

Speaking about your statement that the buildings are more interesting, I tend to agree. Some of the building are marvelous (like the new Visitor Center) and worth to be photographed. Some of the landscaping -- as a pure representation of the corporate culture -- worth photographing too. The second image in this section is named "Landscaping in the RedWest campus" and the main subject of it is the landscape, not buildings. I agree, that this is a good way to show how the company cares about employees. However, I'm suggesting to replace it with one of the following images which shows the RedWest waterfall:

• http://abcpp.us/picture.asp?picture=IMG_0155.jpg&gallery=autumn
• http://abcpp.us/picture.asp?picture=IMG_0374_0_2_31.jpg&gallery=redwest%20at%20night

What do you think about the waterfall?

Thanks in advance!

Andrew Abcpp 76.121.98.177 (talk) 21:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Philippine legal issue

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)

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)

OK to add a link to External Links under Microsoft?

Hello, I have a community site which Microsot users can search for addons -> www.microsoftdynamicsaddons.com

Can I edit the page to add that under external links, or can someone add it for me? Is it appropriate to add it?

I use wikipedia for reference but really don't edit, and I don't want to upset any balance or break the rules! Please excuse my question if this is not the right forum!

Thanks, TallMikey --TallMikey (talk) 01:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

No. A "Microsoft user" won't necessarily be able to use any of those add-ons; somebody who has a Microsoft Natural keyboard plugged into a machine running FreeBSD, for example, is a "Microsoft user", as is somebody who runs Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office on their PC but doesn't use or manage Microsoft Dynamics, doesn't know anybody who does, and doesn't work in an organization that does. This page is about Microsoft-the-corporation in general, not about any of its particular products. If that link belongs on any page, it'd belong on the page for Microsoft Dynamics - and you'll find it's already on that page (currently, it's the first link under "External links"). Guy Harris (talk) 01:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I've made it the second link on that page - Microsoft's own page for the product is more important to a page about the product than a page with a collection of add-ons; the goal of that page is primarily to inform people about Microsoft Dynamics, not to point to add-ons for the product. Guy Harris (talk) 01:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

OK Guy, thanks for your assistance, that makes sense. One more quick (wikipedia general) question if you don't mind - I am the administrator for that web site, would it be OK / appropriate to create a wikipedia page for that site? --TallMikey (talk) 17:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The criteria for inclusion is notability. Generally that means multiple third party sources have written about the subject. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

2006–present: Vista and other transitions

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)

Missing link in article

MSX. Marc Mongenet (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

M$

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)

Wikipedia is not a platform for your political messages 64.229.207.39 (talk) 12:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This can be reasonably mentioned and linked in the appropriate section of the Criticism of Microsoft article. Dcoetzee 20:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ownership

Could there be a section about who owns Microsoft and in what proportions? (Sorry if I've missed it somewhere)