Talk:Microsoft

Request edit on 19 June 2014

Kevin1234567891111 is trolling. He has made the article invalide and it is unreadable at the moment. Please revert to the version on 18th June 2014. And investigate why he was given the right to edit to begin with. test Thanks. by Oneneo1 (talk

Poor use of semicolons

First of all, there are 30 (!) semicolons in the article. This is overuse. More simple sentences would be much clearer, punchier writing. There is a false beleif among Wikians that long sentences are more sophisticated. The way to be high quality is via research, analysis, organization, and synthesis. Not making sentences too long and not making paragraphs too long! Then also, even when separate ideas are combined into sentences, the logical relationships are not clear (which is poor writing).

"Primarily in the 1990s, critics contend Microsoft used monopolistic business practices and anti-competitive strategies including refusal to deal and tying, put unreasonable restrictions in the use of its software, and used misrepresentative marketing tactics; both the U.S. Department of Justice and European Commission found the company in violation of antitrust laws."

-what is going on with that sentence? Did the critics contend in the 90s, or did MSFT use in the 90s? If the latter, then why is the modifier dangling so far from what it modifies? IF the former, then the tense is wrong. And then you are using a semicolon to join a thought without spelling out the relation (maybe I could let that pass as you seem to think it a direct followon, but don't do that when the preceding clause is soooo convoluted itself.

BTW, the follow-on sentence, although lacking a semicolon is also a mess ("Known for its interviewing process with obscure questions, various studies and ratings were generally favorable to Microsoft's diversity within the company as well as its overall environmental impact with the exception of the electronics portion of the business.")

-you've meandered amongs about 3+ different somewhat related topics here (interviewing methods, diversity, and environmentals stuff). Why not just do 2, not 3? the environmental thing is an additional librul concern...but not really as closely related as interviewing methods and diversity (both HR concerns).

-Again, you have a dangling modifier, the interviewing process refers to Microsoft, NOT to the studies and ratings that are the subject of the sentence and next to the phrase.

Going further down, I see two sentences in a row that use semicolons. Any book on writing will say to vary the sentence structure. I would LOWER your semicolons OVERALL, but if you insist on using them, then don't have two sentences in a row with them.

And then one of those sentences in a row actually has 3 clauses in a row joined by 2 semicolons, and NOT in a list type way (where they do the work of serial commas), but just joining simple sentences. I've never seen that! 69.255.27.249 (talk)

new organisation Microsoft

Operating Systems Engineering Group Terry Myerson

Devices and Studios Engineering Group Julie Larson-Green

Applications and Services Engineering Group Qi Lu

Cloud and Enterprise Engineering Group Satya Nadella

Dynamics Kirill Tatarinov

Advanced Strategy and Research Group Eric Rudder

Marketing Group Tami Reller

COO Kevin Turner

Business Development and Evangelism Group Tony Bates

Finance Group Amy Hood

Legal and Corporate Affairs Group Brad Smith

HR Group Lisa Brummel

[1]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2015

Paul Allen and Bill Gates, childhood friends with a passion in computer programming, were seeking to make a successful business utilizing their shared skills. In 1972 they founded their first company named Traf-O-Data, which offered a rudimentary computer that tracked and analyzed automobile traffic data. Allen went on to pursue a degree in computer science at the Washington State University, later dropping out of school to work at Honeywell. Gates began studies at Harvard. The January 1975 issue of Popular Electronics featured Micro Instrumentation and Telemetry Systems's (MITS) Altair 8800 microcomputer. Allen suggested that they could program a BASIC interpreter for the device; after a call from Gates claiming to have a working interpreter, MITS requested a demonstration. Since they didn't actually have one, Allen worked on a simulator for the Altair while Gates developed the interpreter. Although they developed the interpreter on a simulator and not the actual device, the interpreter worked flawlessly when they demonstrated the interpreter to MITS in Albuquerque, New Mexico in March 1975; MITS agreed to distribute it, marketing it as Altair BASIC. They officially established Microsoft on April 4, 1975, with Gates as the CEO. Allen came up with the original name of "Micro-Soft," the combination of the words microprocessor and software, as recounted in a 1995 Fortune magazine article. In August 1977 the company formed an agreement with ASCII Magazine in Japan, resulting in its first international office, "ASCII Microsoft". The company moved to a new home in Bellevue, Washington in January 1979. 74.67.54.133 (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: The source says University of Washington, as do other sources. Stickee (talk) 01:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Microsoft personal computer security

Moving forward in the current world environment, security will be big. What will Microsoft do?

Headline-1: Google gives Apple and Microsoft an ultimatum: 'Patch your software vulnerabilities, or we'll make them public'

• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2950785/Google-gives-Apple-Microsoft-ultimatum-Patch-software-vulnerabilities-ll-make-public.html

QUOTE: "Google claims its move is designed to protect consumers from criminals; But software providers are not happy with the threat to expose problems; Opponents say strategy could damage online security and help crooks; Tomorrow, President Obama will visit Google to call on companies to work together and share information to thwart cyber crooks."

Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by AstroU (talk • contribs) 13:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I suggest placing this in the Microsoft Windows article or Internet Explorer under "security issues", I'm not sure if software issues should be mentioned outside of the respective articles concerning the aforementioned software.

Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 12:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

I propose merging Criticism of Microsoft into Microsoft to give both articles a better NPOV. Bryce Carmony (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I think we need to cut down some of the criticism section to make it merge nicely. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 22:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree 100% that we can't just cut and paste the article to get it in. there are 17 sections which are currently each 1-2 paragraphs each. I think we could merge it into the main article with 17 sentences maybe a few more. one thing to keep in mind is that we still have the Microsoft litigation so all "criticism" that are litigation can go there. we don't want to bury information but we want to make sure we aren't giving it undue weight either. Bryce Carmony (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose, my reasons I documented as observations on my user page in 2009 at User:Aladdin_Sane#History under "Some personal history notes..." (Updated in February 2015.) Please consider those comments as included here.

Further, the relatively small "Criticism of Microsoft" article I started editing in 2006 is and was then a daughter article of this article, "Microsoft", and has in these 9 years since spawned at least these granddaughter articles that I'm aware of: "Criticism of Microsoft Windows" (25 refs), "Criticism of Windows Vista" (84 refs) , "Criticism of Windows XP" (21 refs), "Bundling of Microsoft Windows" (46 refs), and "Microsoft litigation" (86 refs), just to get started. Each of those needs to be consumed back into the parent "Criticism of Microsoft" article, prior to that article being consumed by "Microsoft". While skimming those Talk pages I ran across this reference to why we say "Criticism of..." rather than "Reception of..." in the article title, at § Criticism Article should become Reception, that may shed some light on the discussion.

If the problem is the title "Criticism of...", and not the article, then we can re-title it. However, the histories of these articles have shown that prior deletion nominations, re-titles (move requests), and merge proposals have all failed. As I suspect will this one.   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 02:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey Aladdin, I actually don't want to see "Microsoft Litigation" merged anywhere. That is a content split that's based solely on topic. just like if Microsoft had a long history we'd introduce "Microsoft History" or if a author has a lot of books we introduce a "Bibliography" article. Litigation of Microsoft is a great article, because it's separated on the basis of topic. Ny concern is that Criticism of Microsoft and Microsoft aren't 2 different topics ( say Microsoft history vs Microsoft product list ) but are 2 different POVs of the same topic. Bryce Carmony (talk) 03:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Please consider these things, Bryce (besides indenting your replies), while WP:TOOLONG is only a guideline, it also a physical limit, after which the server will go "teats up" as we used to say in the Army. But it also points to WP:TLDR, do you really want to lose your reader? We are not addressing articles in the abstract, my 8 year old niece is who I edit for.

But I feel your concerns about "Criticism of Microsoft" are adequately addressed at the "Content forking" article § Articles whose subject is a POV, and that if that section is not adequate for you, then indeed, take your arguments to the Talk page at Wikipedia:Content forking so that we may address them there all at once. In a nutshell, § 2.3 stipulates that "Articles whose subject is a POV" are an "Acceptable type[] of forking". In other words, the article is, by definition, POV, the content is not, or at least need not be. Simply improve the content there.   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 04:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I indented this just for you. First off Criticism vs non criticism is not "Articles whose subject is a POV" If we have two topics ( say Communism and Capitalism ) there is no problem with 2 articles. however Communism =/= Criticism of Capitalism. even if the ideology does criticize capitalism. Criticism of Microsoft and "Microsoft" ( or "Non-Criticism of Microsoft") are 2 Articles treating the same subject. the subject is Microsoft. 1 Topic does not get two articles. 2 topics can get 2 articles. 3 topics can get 3 articles , etc. But tell me how the "topic" is different in Criticism of Microsoft and Microsoft. if you can truly tell me that they have 2 separate topics I'd be really interested in hearing it. ( I don't mean any of this to sound heated but I do want to make sure we get to the heart of the issue) Bryce Carmony (talk) 05:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Charging customers for access to their email accounts.

Well!

What a couple of weeks/months of frustration it has been for me trying to get back into my own account. After supplying them with all the security information requested; they took my account away and then, as Yahoo did last year; offered to give me access for a fee. Are you serious. Are your customers not the reason you exist today? This is nothing short of "corporate" bullying. I have learned a valuable lesson, have a backup of all you email info, because it's only a matter of time before your number is up and they get you. PAY UP OR ELSE! What is up with sending all the calls to a foreign call center where you have to constantly repeat everything, as if you are not already frustrated enough.

These large corporations don't have the time to care about the people who make their bank accounts "fat." We are simply a nagging child to them, someone who simply doesn't matter to their bottom line.

SHAME ON YOU ALL! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.70.158 (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2015

Can the image tag be changed to the image that the logo points to? The building shown in the photo doesn't represent the company as well as the logo does and so systems and APIs that use the image tag show the build instead of the logo. Drop from an olive tree (talk) 03:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Though I personally agree with you, this is the kind of change that needs consensus. Kharkiv07^Talk 17:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Bad timing usage

Under Criticism there's a line that reads: "More recently, Trojan horses and other exploits have plagued numerous users due to faults in the security of Microsoft Windows and other programs."

"More recently" is not of good use in a wiki since a wiki is atemporal and not an article with defined dates. It does not express a correct information, since this line can have years for example. This line requires a change to reflect a wiki article.

An dz (talk) 02:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)