Talk:Criticism of Microsoft Windows/Archive 2

Should this not be merged or something?
After some consideration, I've struck the below. However, the question remains if the article in it's current state is a POV fork, or partially so. It elaborates on points that do not have received much attention anywhere, are relatively obscure (or poorly sourced). Averell (talk) 12:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I wonder why this page has been around for so long. "Criticism" sections are already discouraged in articles, and at the moment this is more of a POV fork than anything else. To make this article NPOV, we'd need to include all criticism, both positive and negative - at which point it would probably become somewhat redundant.

I'd propose to either merge this into the main "Windows" article, or, if a separate article is required, rename this to "Public Perception/Image of Microsoft Windows".

Note, also that just because the "Criticism" articles seem to be incredibly popular for all operating systems, it isn't necessarily a good idea to have them Averell (talk) 07:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

To do
This article is mostly a collection of facts, with the actual criticism beeing drawn as OR from the sources. Most of the sources do not even contain criticism. This article is mostly useless and should be merged into the correspondending OS articles. StoneProphet (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The sources (ref links) have been thoroughly checked and all of them are valid. TurboForce (talk) 12:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the refs should be updated: Windows 7 is out, and people say it's much better (faster, responsive, less resource-hogging) than Vista. I wonder how many of the arguments those three refs make actually survive... And isn't Windows 8 going tablet?
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "thoroughly checked" and "valid", for this is a Start-class article, and I see no review-links. StoneProphet does have a point (I agree with you that he should have discussed his deletion here before doing it).
 * As to the proposition of split-n-merge: I suppose IF you can find an appropriate article for all the different sections, that would be a pretty good idea. --DanielPharos (talk) 18:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The sources (ref links) have been thoroughly checked and all of them are valid. No. The article voices criticism and draws conclusions. And it tries to use the refs as validation for the critique. Already there the entire article is wrong. Wikipedia is not a soapbox from which you can declare your personal opinion and try to back it up with questionable links. References to self-published material are violations of WP principles. Such references can only ever be valid if they are being used to reference statements about the source. They can never be used to back up claims outside that. Even if editors rephrases the claims into letting seemingly neutral language, such as "the msversus.org site points out that X" they would violate both WP:WEASEL as well as WP:DUE. Most of the references in this article are either references to questionable sources (self published: blog posts, opinion pieces, personal websites) or they are being used in ways which does live up to WP principles. Useerup (talk) 06:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Internet explorer bundled
Article says that "Starting with Windows 98, Internet Explorer has been bundled into Windows". Thats definetely not true, because Windows 95 OSR1 was first release of Windows with IE bundled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.249.176.14 (talk) 07:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not 100% sure if Internet Explorer was deeply integrated into Windows 95 OSR1 or if it was an optional feature rather than being totally integrated into Windows, as it was in Windows 98 and then later versions. I need a suitable ref. TurboForce (talk) 21:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Removal of 'Clock management'
This is
 * POV
 * original research
 * unsourced
 * an attempted criticism of the way IBM implemented the real time clock on the first PC ca 1981.

Therefore removed.

--PlainHolds (talk) 13:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Disagree. 121.209.144.50 (talk) 14:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

PlainHolds is correct. The section had only 2 sources: 1) Microsoft explaining behavior (i.e. not a criticism) and 2) a criticism indeed (pet peeve), but from a self-published source. I looked for RS published criticism but could not find one. After having marked it as self-published and no other editor has found a better source I have removed the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Useerup (talk • contribs) 14:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Removal of 'Hiding of filename extensions'
This is
 * POV
 * original research
 * unsourced

BTW, if file extensions are hidden, then LOVE-LETTER-FOR-YOU.TXT can not be a proper text file since the name seems to inlcude an extension (.TXT) although nine is expected (the file should be named LOVE-LETTER-FOR-YOU).

In default configuration Explorer shows the actual file type in a separate column/field. Furthermore this file type is localised (shown in the current user interface language).

EXE as part of the file name makes no sense to the majority of people not using latin script/not speaking English. And even for English speaking people the file name extension is not that helpful since the would have to check which application is associated with the file name extension (TXT might be associated to some evil application and not notepad).

Therefore removed.

--PlainHolds (talk) 13:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There are sources for everything you claimed there are no sources for. Surely you noticed those sources when you were busying yourself with deleting them.....  Warren -talk- 13:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I can not seen any source backing the claims made!

- only explains the behaviour and does not criticise it. - is a criticism of the way the IBM PC RTC was designed - only explains the behaviour and does not criticise it. - only explains how the sort order can be changed back to the old way of sorting without actually criticising it -  only explains how to enable file extensions without actually criticising it.

--PlainHolds (talk) 14:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You won't get anywhere on Wikipedia with outright lying. The sources are all very clear in stating their criticism of Microsoft Windows.   Warren -talk- 14:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that it should be mentioned the reasons why these decisions were taken (ie sort order change was to be more "natural", file extension hiding is because you can make things unusable if you change the extension and don't know what it was, etc. The clock issues? Yeah, I got nothin' :D 129.215.141.101 (talk) 09:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Added reliable source (CERT) for hiding file extensions. Note that this one does apply to all Windows versions as far as I know; please provide a reliable reference if you want to claim otherwise. – gpvos (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Mac OS X (10.4) also hides file extensions by default. This is aggravating, because it makes harder to see which type of file it is.

Removed it again. PlainHolds is correct, explanation of behavior does not amount to criticism. Need properly sources criticism as this article is about criticism of Microsoft Windows, not an article where an editor can voice his own criticism - even if he/she can back it up with sources which indeed support that the feature work the way the editor dislikes. --Useerup (talk) 14:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Peter Gutmann
How can this article quote Peter Gutmanns paper as support of anything? Hasn't that hit-piece been thoroughly debunked by both ZDNet, arstechnica and history? Either each one of the asserted claims needs to be backed up or they must be deleted per WP policy of being harmful.

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2007/08/aacs-tentacles.ars/2

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/ou/claim-that-vista-drm-causes-full-cpu-load-and-global-warming-debunked/673?tag=content;siu-container

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/everything-youve-read-about-vista-drm-is-wrong-part-1/299

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/everything-youve-read-about-vista-drm-is-wrong-part-2/304?tag=content;siu-container

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/everything-youve-read-about-vista-drm-is-wrong-part-3/309?tag=content;siu-container

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2007/aug/15/bottandoucal

Useerup (talk) 21:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Gutmann is reputable in his field and has plenty of experience and credentials to back his word. Criticisms of his papers and presentations were all produced by people with conflicts of interest (industry insiders, dependent on MS ad money, etc) and arguments which not only lacked neutrality but often devolved into ad-hominem attacks when these reporters ran out of facts. This article is about criticisms and Gutmann's contribution is, indeed a notable and enduring criticism that still stands on many of it's more important points today, such as the attempted closing of the open PC architecture which made the whole industry possible in the first place.  You may have noticed that the industry critics seized upon only a few points to complain about and forgot to mention that Microsoft had not yet activated the DRM components in question.  Look at what those reporters avoided and there's the real story.


 * Anyway, Gutmann's criticisms belong here because they are notable and he, as a source, clearly passes muster. If you wish to question the reliability of Gutmann as a source or the history of his presentation and the industry-led blowback against him the best place to go is the talk page on  his wiki article. Aaron Walkhouse (talk) 22:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute
This entire article has serious issues. An article about criticism of Microsoft Windows should (per Wikipedia principles) be about - not a medium for injecting or voicing biased and lopsided opinions. This problem is systemic in the article. The references are mostly to self-published blogposts or outright Microsoft-hate sites.

While a Wikipedia article about such a criticism should indeed contain refs to such critique, it should report them as neutral as possible and should try to report opposing views with the same weight. The references are being used to try to validate blanket claims in the article where it should be the other way around.

This article bears the hallmark of biased editors trying to find a way to present their own held position as "truth". It violates almost every Wikipedia policy: WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY, WP:UNDUE, WP:NOR.

The article should be fixed by
 * rephrasing claims to report on the criticism instead of repeating the criticism.
 * removing references to non-reliable sources (as a general rule). It is ok to link to criticism voiced by a reputable source or a source with meaningful editorial oversight. As a rule that excludes blogposts, message boards and self-published sites.
 * making an honest effort to find the opposing or mitigating viewpoints. It is the responsibility of the editor who introduces a reference to a criticism to make an honest effort to reference opposing viewpoint.

If these issues cannot be fixed, the article should be nominated for deletion. It is both faulty, ill-written *and* harmful. It repeats harmful criticism without due diligence. Useerup (talk) 20:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Advocacy
The editor(s) of this article may want to read wp:advocacy. Unfortunately, it perfectly describes this entry in its present state. Useerup (talk) 20:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It may be better if you refer to specific issues/sections. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A criticism article is inherently biased. I think making a whole article alone is undue weight. One sentence per criticism is all it deserves.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This is very interesting. Any subject with valid and verified criticism is welcome on Wikipedia as far as I'm concerned.  Besides Windows, I agree with the criticisms about Ubuntu e.g. it drains laptop and netbook batteries faster than Windows does and I'm more than happy to criticise the horrible and bloated Unity interface in Ubuntu BECAUSE IT'S VALID CRITICISM.  I hope now that all you pro-Microsoft readers know that I'm happy to write criticisms about other subjects, provided it's valid criticism and verifiable. TurboForce (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You've lately been adding dubiously sourced content to this article.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * TurboForce this article is not a place where you or anyone else can throw in whatever criticism they have. Even if you can support that a specific behavior, feature or implementation works they way you (or your friends) dislike that is not enough to include it in this article. What you need is very, very simple: Find reliable sources which have voiced criticism and report on them in such a way that you do not use Wikipedias voice to criticize (i.e. use the voice of the source). Like I did with the patch time. Anything which does not meet the criteria of being actual criticism by a reliable source will be marked or outright deleted, if it is harmful. If you have criticism you want to voice, perhaps you should consider creating your own website for it. Do not use Wikipedia for advocacy. --Useerup (talk) 01:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I AM linking to websites or sources which voice real criticisms that have been analysed. I'm well aware of things that many people are not happy with in Windows and if I come across information about these, then I will be linking to them.  You can type in the Wikipedia search "criticism of" and there are many subjects which follow "criticism of" and provided it's valid, I have no problems with it. If someone has valid criticism about any topic and provides the proper ref links, they have the right to put it on Wikipedia, even if I don't like it.  If anyone wants to criticise Windows, Linux, Mac OS X, FreeBSD, RISC OS, AmigaOS, FreeDOS and so on, and so on and so on, then they have the right to do so, as Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, but it has to be VALID and PROVEN criticism, not facts someone 'invents' because they don't like a company or product.  If you think I'm adding criticisms about Windows out of hate - I'm not, I'm adding facts which are true and proven.  By the way, criticism is constructive and beneficial; Windows 7 did improve many of the criticisms of Windows Vista and I sometimes use Windows 7 and agree it's an improvement over Vista. TurboForce (talk) 18:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Then why are you adding a disproportionate amount of criticism to this and other articles related to Windows criticism?Jasper Deng (talk) 18:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * TurboForce, a source which reports on a problem or bug does not amount to criticism, even if you can back up with a verifiable and reliable source that such a problem exists. It must voice criticism. It is not that hard to understand. And when you find something like that you must not use Wikipedias voice to report that criticism. It may never appear to be wikipedia voicing such criticism unless it can be demonstrated to be an unchallenged criticism. And I promise you, none of what is on this page is unchallenged.--Useerup (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Jasper Deng because I have seen repeated problems with Windows since about 1997, I have read many websites and comments online from people who experience problems with Windows and Windows has always been criticised for its performance, security problems and ease of malware infection compared to other operating systems. I know the Windows installation process like the back of my hand as re-installation is often the only way to fix problems in Windows (yes I've tried the "Fix it" tools on Microsoft's website).  I'm glad Useerup agreed with the criticism that it took Microsoft 200 days to fix a security problem after they were told about it.  If in future my favourite distro Ubuntu were to cut corners and be plagued with problems, I would be happy to criticise that as well, but so far Ubuntu is only being criticised for draining laptop/netbook batteries quickly and its Unity interface and I agree with both.  Adobe Flash was criticised heavily on Wikipedia (see sections "User experience", "Flash client security" and "64-bit support") - and I can tell you that it seems to have improved Flash. ;)  I have noticed it was carefully reworded and a lot of spin added, probably by Adobe employees?  Outside of Wikipedia, I do praise products.  I wrote a very happy review online yesterday about a product I'd recently bought.  I do work on other subjects on Wikipedia besides this, including non computer subjects, but this one has required a lot of work from me.  That should answer your questions and hopefully I won't need to keep writing on this page.  I have other things to do as well! TurboForce (talk) 01:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * TurboForce, your anecdotes mean squat here. Keep it out of Wikipedia. Both out of articles and out of talk pages. I have absolutely no intention in engaging in debates about yours or my personal experiences and opinions on Windows, Linux or whatever. As for your "carefully worded", I'd suspect that it was worded in a neutral voice. As for the 200 days, my opinion on the 200 days doesn't matter. Like your opinion doesn't matter. When will you get this? If you read the paragraphs I reworded them into reporting on the opinion of the Google employee rather than let Wikipedia become the voice. Wikipedia is not a website for you to edit. It is an encyclopedia and you can't just throw your own opinion in here - even if you can cite sources supporting that Windows works the way you dislike. I care about WP policies - not fanboy discussions about operating systems. --Useerup (talk) 02:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Big case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, TurboForce, put simply, regarding NPOV and UNDUE. I will not explain it to you further because you know what I'm talking about.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I know exactly what's going here. I'm NEVER wrong when I sense something.  I'm going to keep editing the page with cited ref links to studies which already exist - exactly what I did until my previous edit was reverted - not because it was wrong or breaking Wikipedia rules, but an attempt to suppress the truth.  I'm sure if I criticised Linux in exactly the same way it would be allowed and my edits left untouched by you lot!  This is it.  No more discussions about this.  I'm ignoring you and I will continue editing the page - and others on Wikipedia.  I don't need anyone to tell me to stop telling the truth.  The McLibel Case is a perfect example of what more people should be doing, not sitting on the fence and allowing lies and spin to disguise ugly truths.  No matter what you say or ask me on this page, you will not receive a reply from now on. TurboForce (talk) 01:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

References for backwards compatibility section
I write because of this removal of content citing problems with references. All references, except the first one are from news sources with editorial oversight, so the text should not have been deleted. Here's the text dissected into claims and the supporting refs. Please show which refs exactly are not reliable as all of them are from sources with editorial oversight.
 * Yes, it should have been removed. It is a very poorly written segment with multiple issues. See "problem" columns below. --Useerup (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

1exec1 (talk) 15:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Backward compatibility
I have noticed chunks of the article have gone missing, such as the backward compatibility section.

Broken backward compatibility support for older programs and hardware devices has been a major problem with every new release of Windows - and even when installing Service Packs.

Microsoft knowingly removed the Virtual DOS Machine from 64-bit versions of Windows and this prevents 16-bit Windows programs from running at all. It may not sound major, but if any of Microsoft's customers must run 16-bit Windows programs e.g. because the software vendor of that 16-bit Windows program went out of business, such customers are now left out in the cold.

I won't reply to arguments about justifying my edits, only replies to genuine answers and not trying to pretend the backward compatibility problems in Windows don't exist. TurboForce (talk) 16:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Provide reliable sourcing (not personal blogs, not personal anecdotes) and use the voice of the source rather than the voice of Wikipedia. The reliable sources for criticism need to voice criticism (i.e. you cannot use a source to describe a certain feature or property if that source merely describes it as such and it is you who thinks that it should have been better/different). You need sources which directly voice criticism. You need ensure that the criticism has been published through a channel with meaningful editorial oversight or peer review, and you need to look for other significant viewpoints. This article is still not a forum for WP editors to voice your their own criticism and back it up with dubious links. If there is widespread criticism about Windows' backwards compatibility you should have no problem finding mainstream published criticism and significant counter arguments. --Useerup (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The 16-bit one is way overstated. Who runs 16-bit today?? Name me at least 10 popular programs that are still 16-bit. Jasper Deng (talk) 21:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Gamers complain that 16-bit Windows (not DOS) games can't be played. The DOS games should work in DOSBox, but 16-bit Windows games (Win16) won't work on 64-bit Windows.  The only way I can play Win16 games on 64-bit is to use Wine - all but one of those games works doing this.  What if Microsoft decides to stop supporting 32-bit Windows apps in Windows 8 or the next version of Windows after that?  There's nothing you can do if you rely on Windows and find you can't run these programs if you need them! TurboForce (talk) 10:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * How much is that a problem, compared to it being a malware target? Jasper Deng (talk) 22:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If a component like the NTVDM (NT-Virtual DOS machine) is secured properly, it won't be a big malware target. Is DOSBox a malware target for supporting DOS programs?  Consider that a web browser is always a target for malware, but some web browsers like Opera have a better security track record than Microsoft's Internet Explorer. Google Chrome has always had a good defence against malware.  I've linked directly to the security sections on the web browsers' pages. TurboForce (talk) 13:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The question is, how big of this is an issue compared to Windows' malware attractions (which little to do with NTVM). Jasper Deng (talk) 05:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, 16-bit backwards compatibility was a problem 12 years ago, when WinXP was released. 1exec1 (talk) 14:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Windows 8 restriction
Unbalanced opinion. The section Improve the section with other significant viewpoints (and sources). Use neutral language and describe from WP:NPOV. Remember, the WP:BURDEN for reporting in WP:NPOV, ensuring WP:DUE falls on the editors adding or re-introducing content. Hint: ZDNets Ed Bott has done some thorough reporting on the subject. If the section fails WP:NPOV it will be deleted according to WP policies mentioned. --Useerup (talk) 14:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Uses a quote from an unreliable and obviously biased source. OSNews is not a reliable source blatantly ignores Microsofts explanations and clarifications as well as
 * Ignores Microsofts responses as well as several other media responses. This is cherry-picking and a violation of WP:NPOV.
 * I disagree. While OSNews might not be as reliable as Ars Technica, it is usually considered a reliable-enough source in wikipedia, being used in houndreds of articles Of course being widely used does not automatically make it "reliable", but it shows that editors generally find it "OK". You say it is "biased", but... any criticism/opinion is never neutral and always biased (the same thing goes for Ed Bott or any other person). You say it "ignores Microsofts explanations", but their explanations  adressed the "first wave" of criticism, when everything was mainly speculation. It also turned out Microsoft changed their position or just simply lied    So, at best, their clarification is outdated, and at worst misleading/false. It would be nice if you mentioned "several other media responses" in particular, none of the ones I have read have clarified how this is NOT an issue (not even this one by Ed Bott ). "This is cherry-picking and a violation of WP:NPOV." - The concerns expressed in the OSNews quote are echoed by virtually all the mainsream tech media (eg: non-Linux, non-OpenSource), so it is hardly "cherry-picking". You also talk about WP:BURDEN and significant viewpoints, but, if anything, it is the Microsoft position (and Ed Bott's) who are in the minority, like I said, the media is overwelmingly treating this as a valid concern. I have updated the section and used more neutral language, but bear in mind we should use plain English and not water is down so much (in the name of NPOV) that is becames non-comprehensible. You also seem to be hinting at a possible deletion, please note lack of neutrality should not be used as an excuse to delete content. and ArbCom considers It is disruptive to remove statements that are sourced reliably, written in a neutral narrative, and pertain to the subject at hand. Jerebin (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think without the ability to disable secure boot, the criticism is valid. Jasper Deng (talk) 22:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, the criticism is definitively notable. But the section does not mention other significant viewpoints. This is not about majority but about how reliable the sources are. A source is not automatically reliable by virtue of the hosting media. Reliability also has to take into account how close to the topic/subject the source is and how well sourced it source itself is. Read WP:SOURCE. My complaint is that this is WP:POV and WP:UNDUE until the other significant viewpoints have been explained. --Useerup (talk) 23:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is about the majority. WP:UNDUE says for us to present viewpoints in the proportion they are used. Jasper Deng (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It does make me wonder why some people spend hours carefully trying to enforce the rules of Wikipedia in order to suppress the truth? Microsoft certification requirements for Windows 8 are anti-competitive because the requirements prevent Linux, BSD and other operating systems from being installed.  The user should be able to choose which operating system they can install.  Consider that the ARM-based Iyonix PC would allow the user to install Linux if they wish, instead of using the manufacturer's included operating system stored in the ROM.  TurboForce (talk) 23:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * But the thing is, why is it that it appears that you're only in this topic to spread "truths" about Windows? I've never seen (even if you did) you add a single criticism to a Linux-related article. Jasper Deng (talk) 23:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The criticisms in Linux articles are valid and I've not needed to do any further editing e.g. Ubuntu drains battery life quickly and reviews of the Unity user interface in Ubuntu, along with views that Linux is not as user-friendly as it could be, however the latter one is being addressed, especially when you compare it from how Linux was 10 years ago and before! The problems in Windows are more serious, especially when Microsoft's certification requirements for Windows 8 would knowingly prevent competing operating systems like Linux from being installed on such computers.  If Canonical Ltd. put the same restrictions in place for Ubuntu, it would be criticised in exactly the same way and rightly so. TurboForce (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Now, did you ever add any addressing of issues by Microsoft? Jasper Deng (talk) 00:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Jasper Deng. There are significant viewpoints which have not been mentioned here. And the way the section right now is phrased one would believe that the criticism is about "Windows 8" in general. The section neglects that there are two different discussions: One for Windows 8 PCs and one for Windows 8 on ARM. Reliable sourcing is not about who has the most or strongest opinions. Significant viewpoints may also come from sources which demonstrate verifiability and which offer more than opinions. Ed Botts pieces on this debate demonstrate that. The sources used right now are primary sources in that they are too close to the subject, in time as well as in affiliation. The section also does not mention the motivation for secure boot and the security it provides. The section focuses entirely on "anti competitive" behavior and skips over the fact that secure boot will make rootkits virtually impossible, which is the real objective of secure boot. Neglecting those viewpoints is WP:UNDUE. Apart from that, there is several mistakes: Windows 8 does not (will not) require that it be started through secure boot, not on PCs and not on ARM. Microsoft has mandated that to sell a Windows 8 Logo certified PC secure boot must be enabled by default (but the OS will boot without secure boot as well). They apparently also require that on ARM devices secure boot must not be allowed to be switched off. There is no information that MS prohibits other keys than the MS one in the UEFI key store. And there is no information whether or not one will be able to purchase standalone Windows 8 for ARM (presumably not). --Useerup (talk) 00:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Then be bold and solve the problem yourself (I refuse to take a stance on this issue). Jasper Deng (talk) 00:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If Microsoft changes its certification requirements and makes it clear in writing that their certified Windows 8 computers of all types do not prevent users from installing other operating systems, I would happily delete the Windows 8 secure boot section. If certified Windows 8 computers hampered other operating systems in any way, then something malicious must be suspected.  TurboForce (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OMG, "malicious"?? You've gotta be kidding me. What Useerup is talking about is not deleting the section itself, but adding Microsoft's attempt to address it (which may not necessarily be completely satisfactory). Jasper Deng (talk) 00:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Wrong article
This article is for "Criticisms that apply to several or all versions of Windows". The Windows 8 restriction is specific to Windows 8. We should simply have a link to Windows 8 (which seems to already have more complete balanced coverage of the issue than this article.) - Josh (talk | contribs) 02:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Boldly ✅ with the controversy link moved to the See Also section. Jasper Deng (talk) 03:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Advertisers pay the writers?
I undid a statement saying that they were paid by Microsoft advertisers, mainly because that would be a direct contradiction of the previous statement that the writers were independent. We use for existing facts; I can't just add "Windows eventually will use a Linux kernal".Jasper Deng (talk) 01:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Obviously the editor 210.22.142.82 forgot to remove the word "independent"?  The sentence was written like this:
 * "As with the claims about the overreaching Vista DRM, independent tech writers whose salaries are paid for by Microsoft advertising quickly dismissed the claims as faulty analysis."
 * If the user 210.22.142.82 is correct, he/she did not use a ref and should have either removed the word "independent" or worded the sentence appropriately to say that the tech writers were supposedly independent. TurboForce (talk) 02:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Because we cannot find out for sure, I think this statement just does not belong.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Statements which are obviously untrue should be deleted, but other questionable statements without citations should be marked with .  TurboForce (talk) 11:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Not if the statements are damaging or potentially damaging. Which applies here. --Useerup (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah. It's quite a big claim to make even with reliable sources, let alone without.Jasper Deng (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If a statement is true AND cited properly then it can stay there. Wikipedia is SUPPOSED to tell the truth and prove it.  End of. TurboForce (talk) 20:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Readers must be able to check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source (which excludes personal blogs and news sites among other sources). It doesn't matter whether editors think it is true or not. Truth, unfortunately, is often subjective --Useerup (talk) 21:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)