Talk:History of Microsoft

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the History of Microsoft article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2

History of Microsoft has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 6, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
September 22, 2008	Good topic candidate	Not promoted

Current status: Good article

History of Microsoft is part of the Founding of Microsoft series, a former good topic candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the topic for good topic status.

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Microsoft Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to Microsoft on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicrosoftWikipedia:WikiProject MicrosoftTemplate:WikiProject MicrosoftMicrosoft articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Computing High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Companies High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

United States: Washington High‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Washington (assessed as High-importance).

History

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Is Micro-Soft really founded on April 4, 1975?

This is a request from Japanese Wikipedia contributors. There is no reliable evidence to show that April 4, 1975 is the date Microsoft was founded, according to a Japanese book published by Keio University. It would be much appreciated if any English contributors could verify the exact date with reliable sources. Here is the summarized translation of the Japanese source.

April 1975 is the month Paul Allen was employed by Micro Instrumentation and Telemetry Systems. However, there is no evidence to show that Microsoft was founded at the same time. Gates and Allen officially signed a written business partnership on February 3, 1977. Before this formal agreement, the two worked on the business and product development on an oral agreement basis so that no reliable source supports the date. Moreover, the name of Micro-Soft was invented in the summer of 1975. So, "Micro-Soft" cannot be founded prior to the summer. Today, Both Gates and Allen have talked to many reliable sources that Microsoft was founded on April 4, 1975. However, their interview comments saying April 4 cannot be found before 2005. Therefore, the author of the book published by Keio University casts a significant doubt that Gates and Allen invented a 30-year anniversary.

Then, one of Japanese Wikipedia contributors further researched to find other sources. Author = Janice Jorgensen, Publisher = St. James Press, Date =1994, Title = Encyclopedia of Consumer Brands: Durable goods, Page = 342, Quote = "on April 4, 1975, Gates and Allen officially established Microsoft as a business partnership." This document, however, does not include any interview comment, and does not show any reason or source for the date April 4. So far, there seems no reliable information on what happened and was agreed on April 4.

Could anyone show any reliable source on the date when Microsoft was founded that is published before 1980? Thank you. --by ProfessorPine (talk) 01:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC) --Modified by Ilrtropc (talk) 01:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

After ten weeks without a support vote, I think this move can be rejected. User:GKFX^talk 22:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request received to merge articles: Criticism of Microsoft into History of Microsoft; dated: 01/2021.

Proposer's Rationale: This is going to be a tricky one, but conceptually, Criticism of Microsoft should be merged into History of Microsoft. WP:CRIT is my rationale. These two articles together are over 200K, so a content fork is needed. I'd propose one based upon time ranges, but I'm not sure that's the best. Jdphenix (talk) 07:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

sounds like a good way to make a lot of criticisms of MS disappear. Covidtonthemurderhornet (talk) 04:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm opposed to this merge. It's logical to have a dedicated criticism article for this topic, since there's a lot to cover there. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by a fork. Can you elaborate on that? Thanks, DesertPipeline (talk) 13:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of the book "The FreeBSD Corporate Networker's Guide" published in 2000 by Addison Wesley. I actually added a complete chapter on Microsoft criticism to that book because it is such an important topic. I will point out that it is pretty standard practice in the literary business to separate criticism of a work from that work - while you can purchase a copy of "Little House On the Prairie" that has Lit Crit included, it is not standard and those texts are dwarfed by the amount of Lit Crit of "Little House" that is published separately. I don't see much different here. The article page on the Microsoft company is a showpiece of the company, a reader would go to there to find out about Microsoft. Criticism of Microsoft is a separate issue from the company itself just as criticism of "Little House" is separate from the book itself. While it would be certainly welcome to link from the main Microsoft article to this page, that is all that should be done. Microsoft's products so fundamentally affect the entire computer industry that it is important to the industry - that is the same industry that without which this site would not exist - to question the motives of the company. It's not like criticizing a manufacturer of electric motors since many companies make motors that can be substituted in. There is no drop in replacement for a piece of Microsoft software. Tmittelstaedt — Preceding undated comment added 06:25, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Per WP:CRIT: Dedicated "Criticism of ..." articles are sometimes appropriate for organizations, businesses, [...] provided the sources justify it; Microsoft is obviously a large enough organisation with sufficient criticism in many forms to justify a dedicated article. User:GKFX^talk 22:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.