Microsoft: Difference between revisions

(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)

Line 66:

*Priced ''MS-DOS'' significantly lower than competitors, making it the default choice for PC makers.{{Citation needed}}

*Launched ''Windows 1.0'' in 1985, as a graphical extension of ''MS-DOS''. They had over 90% of the PC market by the 1990's.<ref>{{Cite web |date=January 29, 2002 |title=Competitive Processes, Anticompetitive Practices And Consumer Harm In The Software Industry: An Analysis Of The Inadequacies Of The Microsoft-Department Of Justice Proposed Final Judgment |url=https://www.justice.gov/atr/competitive-processes-anticompetitive-practices-and-consumer-harm-software-industry-analysis |website=justice.gov }}</ref>

*Integrated ''Internet Explorer'' (IE) with ''Windows'', making it difficult for users to choose alternatives like ''Netscape Navigator''. This led to the U.S. v. Microsoft Corp. antitrust case (1998), where the company was found guilty of illegally maintaining a monopoly.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2001-06-28 |title=U.S. v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001) |url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/253/34/576095/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110413112825/https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/253/34/576095/ |archive-date=2011-04-13 |access-date=2025-08-19 |website=JUSTIA U.S. Law}}</ref>

*Integrated ''Internet Explorer'' (IE) with ''Windows'', making it difficult for users to choose alternatives like ''Netscape Navigator''. This led to the U.S. v. Microsoft Corp. antitrust case (1998), where the company was found guilty of illegally maintaining a monopoly.<ref name=":5">{{Cite web |date=2001-06-28 |title=U.S. v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001) |url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/253/34/576095/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110413112825/https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/253/34/576095/ |archive-date=2011-04-13 |access-date=2025-08-19 |website=JUSTIA U.S. Law}}</ref>

*Allegedly used "embrace, extend, extinguish" tactics; adopting open standards, extending them with proprietary features, and then pushing competitors out.<ref name=":6">{{Cite web |date=January 25, 2002 |title=Competitive Processes, Anticompetitive Practices And Consumer Harm In The Software Industry: An Analysis Of The Inadequacies Of The Microsoft-Department Of Justice Proposed Final Judgment |url=https://www.justice.gov/atr/competitive-processes-anticompetitive-practices-and-consumer-harm-software-industry-analysis |website=justice.gov}}</ref>

*Charging higher fees for running ''Windows Server'' on rival clouds (e.g., ''AWS'', ''Google Cloud'') versus ''Azure''.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Browne |first=Ryan |date=December 3, 2024 |title=Microsoft faces £1 billion lawsuit in UK for allegedly overcharging rival cloud firms’ customers |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2024/12/03/microsoft-overcharging-rival-cloud-firms-customers-uk-lawsuit-says.html |website=CNBC}}</ref>

Line 83:

===Court cases up to the early 2000s===

In a major antitrust case brought by the ''US Department of Justice'', ''U.S. v.'' Microsoft Corp'''''.''','' 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001),~~{{Citation needed}}~~ Microsoft argued that there was no barrier to entry in the market they were in. A central issue at that time was whether Microsoft could bundle the web browser ''Internet Explorer'' with the Microsoft Windows operating system. The ''District Court'' stated the following in the court case: <blockquote>"The District Court condemned a number of provisions in Microsoft's agreements licensing Windows to OEMs, because it found that Microsoft's imposition of those provisions (like many of Microsoft's other actions at issue in this case) serves to reduce usage share of ''Netscape''<nowiki/>'s browser and, hence, protect Microsoft's operating system monopoly."</blockquote>The court specifically identified three main license restrictions for [[Original Equipment Manufacturers]] (OEMs) that were considered problematic:

In a major antitrust case brought by the ''US Department of Justice'', ''U.S. v.'' Microsoft Corp'''''.''','' 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001),<ref name=":5" /> Microsoft argued that there was no barrier to entry in the market they were in. A central issue at that time was whether Microsoft could bundle the web browser ''Internet Explorer'' with the Microsoft Windows operating system. The ''District Court'' stated the following in the court case: <blockquote>"The District Court condemned a number of provisions in Microsoft's agreements licensing Windows to OEMs, because it found that Microsoft's imposition of those provisions (like many of Microsoft's other actions at issue in this case) serves to reduce usage share of ''Netscape''<nowiki/>'s browser and, hence, protect Microsoft's operating system monopoly."</blockquote>The court specifically identified three main license restrictions for [[Original Equipment Manufacturers]] (OEMs) that were considered problematic:

#The prohibition upon the removal of desktop icons, folders, and Start menu entries

Line 178:

====TPM 2.0 chip requirements====

Microsoft updated their system requirements to include ''Trusted Platform Module 2.0'' (TPM) support as a mandatory requirement for upgrading to ''[[Windows 11]]''. This would require either a TPM-compatible CPU, or a separate TPM-dedicated chip to be installed on the motherboard, however some users were able to circumvent this requirement by editing the registry.<ref>[https://www.starwindsoftware.com/blog/bypass-tpm-and-install-windows-11-on-unsupported-hardware/ "Bypass TPM and Install Windows 11 on Unsupported Hardware"] - starwindsoftware.com - accessed 2025-01-29</ref> This change resulted in many customers selling or discarding their otherwise functional computers and hardware that did not meet the new system requirements.<ref>[https://securityonline.info/windows-11s-tpm-2-0-free-software-foundation-fights-forced-upgrades-and-e-waste/ "Windows 11’s TPM 2.0: Free Software Foundation Fights Forced Upgrades and E-Waste"] - securityonline.info - accessed 2025-01-29</ref> Microsoft has been frequently reminding users of ''[[Windows|Windows 10]]'' to upgrade their hardware to be compatible with ''[[Windows 11]]'',<ref>[https://www.pcmag.com/news/microsoft-revives-pop-ups-in-windows-10-to-push-windows-11-upgrades "Microsoft Revives Pop-Ups in Windows 10 to Push Windows 11 Upgrades"] - pcmag.com - accessed 2025-01-29</ref><ref>[https://www.techradar.com/computing/windows/microsoft-embarrasses-itself-with-windows-10-pop-up-that-hogs-the-desktop-urging-an-upgrade-to-windows-11-then-promptly-crashes "Microsoft embarrasses itself with Windows 10 pop-up that hogs the desktop urging an upgrade to Windows 11 – then promptly crashes"] - techradar.com - accessed 2025-01-29</ref> which has caused many users frequent agitation.<ref>[https://www.reddit.com/r/microsoft/comments/19dvs9k/any_way_to_disable_the_upgrade_to_windows_11_ads/ "Any way to disable the "upgrade to Windows 11" ads?"] - reddit.com - accessed 2025-01-29</ref>

Some advocacy groups, such as the [https://endof10.org End of Windows 10 campaign] , have encouraged users with older PCs to switch to Linux instead.

====Recall====

@@ Line 66: / Line 66: @@
 *Priced ''MS-DOS'' significantly lower than competitors, making it the default choice for PC makers.{{Citation needed}}
 *Launched ''Windows 1.0'' in 1985, as a graphical extension of ''MS-DOS''. They had over 90% of the PC market by the 1990's.<ref>{{Cite web |date=January 29, 2002 |title=Competitive Processes, Anticompetitive Practices And Consumer Harm In The Software Industry: An Analysis Of The Inadequacies Of The Microsoft-Department Of Justice Proposed Final Judgment |url=https://www.justice.gov/atr/competitive-processes-anticompetitive-practices-and-consumer-harm-software-industry-analysis |website=justice.gov }}</ref>
-*Integrated ''Internet Explorer'' (IE) with ''Windows'', making it difficult for users to choose alternatives like ''Netscape Navigator''. This led to the U.S. v. Microsoft Corp. antitrust case (1998), where the company was found guilty of illegally maintaining a monopoly.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2001-06-28 |title=U.S. v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001) |url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/253/34/576095/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110413112825/https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/253/34/576095/ |archive-date=2011-04-13 |access-date=2025-08-19 |website=JUSTIA U.S. Law}}</ref>
+*Integrated ''Internet Explorer'' (IE) with ''Windows'', making it difficult for users to choose alternatives like ''Netscape Navigator''. This led to the U.S. v. Microsoft Corp. antitrust case (1998), where the company was found guilty of illegally maintaining a monopoly.<ref name=":5">{{Cite web |date=2001-06-28 |title=U.S. v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001) |url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/253/34/576095/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110413112825/https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/253/34/576095/ |archive-date=2011-04-13 |access-date=2025-08-19 |website=JUSTIA U.S. Law}}</ref>
 *Allegedly used "embrace, extend, extinguish" tactics; adopting open standards, extending them with proprietary features, and then pushing competitors out.<ref name=":6">{{Cite web |date=January 25, 2002 |title=Competitive Processes, Anticompetitive Practices And Consumer Harm In The Software Industry: An Analysis Of The Inadequacies Of The Microsoft-Department Of Justice Proposed Final Judgment |url=https://www.justice.gov/atr/competitive-processes-anticompetitive-practices-and-consumer-harm-software-industry-analysis |website=justice.gov}}</ref>
 *Charging higher fees for running ''Windows Server'' on rival clouds (e.g., ''AWS'', ''Google Cloud'') versus ''Azure''.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Browne |first=Ryan |date=December 3, 2024 |title=Microsoft faces £1 billion lawsuit in UK for allegedly overcharging rival cloud firms’ customers |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2024/12/03/microsoft-overcharging-rival-cloud-firms-customers-uk-lawsuit-says.html |website=CNBC}}</ref>
@@ Line 83: / Line 83: @@
 ===Court cases up to the early 2000s===
-In a major antitrust case brought by the ''US Department of Justice'', ''U.S. v.'' Microsoft Corp'''''.''','' 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001),{{Citation needed}} Microsoft argued that there was no barrier to entry in the market they were in. A central issue at that time was whether Microsoft could bundle the web browser ''Internet Explorer'' with the Microsoft Windows operating system. The ''District Court'' stated the following in the court case: <blockquote>"The District Court condemned a number of provisions in Microsoft's agreements licensing Windows to OEMs, because it found that Microsoft's imposition of those provisions (like many of Microsoft's other actions at issue in this case) serves to reduce usage share of ''Netscape''<nowiki/>'s browser and, hence, protect Microsoft's operating system monopoly."</blockquote>The court specifically identified three main license restrictions for [[Original Equipment Manufacturers]] (OEMs) that were considered problematic:
+In a major antitrust case brought by the ''US Department of Justice'', ''U.S. v.'' Microsoft Corp'''''.''','' 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001),<ref name=":5" /> Microsoft argued that there was no barrier to entry in the market they were in. A central issue at that time was whether Microsoft could bundle the web browser ''Internet Explorer'' with the Microsoft Windows operating system. The ''District Court'' stated the following in the court case: <blockquote>"The District Court condemned a number of provisions in Microsoft's agreements licensing Windows to OEMs, because it found that Microsoft's imposition of those provisions (like many of Microsoft's other actions at issue in this case) serves to reduce usage share of ''Netscape''<nowiki/>'s browser and, hence, protect Microsoft's operating system monopoly."</blockquote>The court specifically identified three main license restrictions for [[Original Equipment Manufacturers]] (OEMs) that were considered problematic:
 #The prohibition upon the removal of desktop icons, folders, and Start menu entries
@@ Line 178: / Line 178: @@
 ====TPM 2.0 chip requirements====
 Microsoft updated their system requirements to include ''Trusted Platform Module 2.0'' (TPM) support as a mandatory requirement for upgrading to ''[[Windows 11]]''. This would require either a TPM-compatible CPU, or a separate TPM-dedicated chip to be installed on the motherboard, however some users were able to circumvent this requirement by editing the registry.<ref>[https://www.starwindsoftware.com/blog/bypass-tpm-and-install-windows-11-on-unsupported-hardware/ "Bypass TPM and Install Windows 11 on Unsupported Hardware"] - starwindsoftware.com - accessed 2025-01-29</ref> This change resulted in many customers selling or discarding their otherwise functional computers and hardware that did not meet the new system requirements.<ref>[https://securityonline.info/windows-11s-tpm-2-0-free-software-foundation-fights-forced-upgrades-and-e-waste/ "Windows 11’s TPM 2.0: Free Software Foundation Fights Forced Upgrades and E-Waste"] - securityonline.info - accessed 2025-01-29</ref> Microsoft has been frequently reminding users of ''[[Windows|Windows 10]]'' to upgrade their hardware to be compatible with ''[[Windows 11]]'',<ref>[https://www.pcmag.com/news/microsoft-revives-pop-ups-in-windows-10-to-push-windows-11-upgrades "Microsoft Revives Pop-Ups in Windows 10 to Push Windows 11 Upgrades"] - pcmag.com - accessed 2025-01-29</ref><ref>[https://www.techradar.com/computing/windows/microsoft-embarrasses-itself-with-windows-10-pop-up-that-hogs-the-desktop-urging-an-upgrade-to-windows-11-then-promptly-crashes "Microsoft embarrasses itself with Windows 10 pop-up that hogs the desktop urging an upgrade to Windows 11 – then promptly crashes"] - techradar.com - accessed 2025-01-29</ref> which has caused many users frequent agitation.<ref>[https://www.reddit.com/r/microsoft/comments/19dvs9k/any_way_to_disable_the_upgrade_to_windows_11_ads/ "Any way to disable the "upgrade to Windows 11" ads?"] - reddit.com - accessed 2025-01-29</ref>
+Some advocacy groups, such as the [https://endof10.org End of Windows 10 campaign] , have encouraged users with older PCs to switch to Linux instead.
 ====Recall====