User:RN/prosetests
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Logos and slogans
In 1987, Microsoft adopted its current logo, the so-called "Pacman Logo" designed by Scott Baker. According to the March 1987 Computer Reseller News Magazine, "The new logo, in Helvetica italic typeface, has a slash between the o and s to emphasize the "soft" part of the name and convey motion and speed." Dave Norris, a Microsoft employee, ran an internal joke campaign to save the old logo, which was green, in all uppercase, and featured a fanciful letter O, nicknamed the blibbet, but it was discarded.[1]
Microsoft's logo depicted here, with the "Your potential. Our passion." tagline below the main corporate name, is based on the slogan Microsoft had as of 2006. In 2002, the company started using the logo in the United States and eventually started a TV campaign with the slogan, changed from the previous tagline of "Where do you want to go today?."[2][3][4] Like some of Microsoft's other actions, the slogan met its fair share of criticism. For example, in his ThirdWay Advertising Blog, David Vinjamuri states that while "This is gorgeous, touching advertising of the type that wins awards," he ends by noting that the slogan "Only reminds us what we do not like about the brand. Can it."[5]
 Microsoft "blibbet" logo, mid-1980s. |
 Microsoft logo as of 2006, with the slogan "Your potential. Our passion."[3] |
[edit] Criticism
- See also: Criticism of Microsoft
[edit] Corporate
Since the 1980s, Microsoft has been the focus of much controversy in the computer industry. Most criticism has been for its business tactics, which some perceive as unfair and anticompetitive. Often, these tactics have been described with the motto "embrace, extend and extinguish". Microsoft initially embraces a competing standard or product, then extends it to produce their own incompatible version of the software or standard, which in time extinguishes competition that does not or cannot use Microsoft's new version.[6] These and other tactics have led to various companies and governments filing lawsuits against Microsoft.[7][8][9][10][11][12] Microsoft has been called a "velvet sweatshop" in reference to allegations of the company working its employees to the point where it might be bad for their health. The first instance of "velvet sweatshop" in reference to Microsoft originated from a Seattle Times article in 1989, and later became used to describe the company by some of Microsoft's own employees.[13][14]
Free software proponents point to the company's joining of the Trusted Computing Platform Alliance (TCPA) as a cause of concern. A group of companies that seek to implement an initiative called Trusted Computing (which sets out to increase security and privacy in a user's computer), the TCPA is decried by critics as a means to allow software developers to enforce any sort of restriction they wish over their software.
“ Large media corporations, together with computer companies such as Microsoft and Intel, are planning to make your computer obey them instead of you”
- Richard Stallman, founder of the Free Software Foundation[15]
Advocates of free software also take issue with Microsoft's promotion of Digital Rights Management (DRM), and the company's total cost of ownership (TCO) comparisons with its "Get the facts" campaign. Digital Rights Management is a technology that gives digital content and software providers the ability to put restrictions on how their products are used on their customers' machines; these restrictions are seen by the technology's detractors as an infringement on fair use and other rights.[16] DRM restricts even legal uses, for example, re-mixing or playing in a slideshow. Microsoft is not the only platform provider who supports DRM, however. For example, Apple Computer has been under fire from the French Government for "FairPlay," a DRM system used to control usage of content downloaded from its iTunes Music Store service.[17] The "Get the facts" campaign argues that Windows Server has a lower TCO than Linux and lists a variety of studies in order to prove its case.[18] Proponents of Linux unveiled their own study arguing that, contrary to one of Microsoft's claims, Linux has lower management costs than Windows Server.[19] Another study by the Yankee Group claims that Windows Server costs less than Linux for those with legacy systems and more for those without.[20]
[edit] Technical
Older versions of Microsoft products were often characterized as being unstable — versions of Windows based on MS-DOS, and later the Windows 95 kernel from the mid 1990s to early 2000s, were widely panned for their instability, displaying the "Blue Screen of Death", when Windows abruptly terminates an application — usually due to malfunctioning drivers or hardware. In Windows NT/2000/XP Professional, the blue screen is also known as the Windows Stop Message.[21][22] While less frequent, Windows 2000 and XP are still susceptible to Blue Screens of Death.[23] Blue Screens of Death in Windows NT/2000/XP and later Windows systems are the equivalent of kernel panics in Unix-like systems. Although many of these bugs are from Windows itself, computer users who are not familiar with the division of responsibilities among applications, the operating system, and third-party device drivers sometimes blame Microsoft for problems that are created by third-party software, particularly poorly written, often unsigned drivers. Microsoft has consequently announced that it will disallow unsigned drivers in the 64-bit editions of Windows Vista.[24][25][26][27]
Numerous Microsoft products, most notably earlier versions of Internet Explorer and Outlook, are seen as being insecure to malicious attacks such as computer viruses. Rob Pegoraro, writing for the Washington Post, says that due to Windows leaving five Internet ports open for various running services, malware has an easier time compromising the system.[28] In an article for SecurityFocus, Scott Granneman said that as of 2004-06-17 there were 153 accumulated security holes since 2001-04-18 and that Internet Explorer "is a buggy, insecure, dangerous piece of software."[29] Mike Nash, a Microsoft Corporate Vice President, responded to Internet Explorer security concerns in a 2005 interview by stating that the version of Internet Explorer shipped with Windows XP Service Pack 2 gives it security on the same level as its competition.[30] The current version, Internet Explorer 7, has a security overhaul with anti-phishing and malware prevention technology.[31]
