Microsoft: Difference between revisions
Capitalized certain letters, added part about ending support for Windows 11. Edited part about copilot to be more formal. Both edits are now referenced. |
Added windows 11 section |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
---- | ---- | ||
Microsoft had stated that Windows 10 would be the last Windows version, but now they are forcing users into Windows 11 by discontinuing free official support for Windows 10 starting on October 14, 2025<ref>https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/end-of-support</ref>, which is widely regarded as a significantly inferior operating system. Windows 11 also requires a Microsoft account to install. Windows 11 also says that a piece of hardware called TPM is required to install the problem is that PCs made before a couple of years ago do not have this hardware.. It is notable that this restriction can be bypassed.New Windows 11 builds are now shipping with Microsoft Copilot which is a pre-installed opt-out AI program<ref>https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/windows-11</ref> | Microsoft had stated that Windows 10 would be the last Windows version, but now they are forcing users into Windows 11 by discontinuing free official support for Windows 10 starting on October 14, 2025<ref>https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/end-of-support</ref>, which is widely regarded as a significantly inferior operating system. Windows 11 also requires a Microsoft account to install. Windows 11 also says that a piece of hardware called TPM is required to install the problem is that PCs made before a couple of years ago do not have this hardware.. It is notable that this restriction can be bypassed.New Windows 11 builds are now shipping with Microsoft Copilot which is a pre-installed opt-out AI program<ref>https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/windows-11</ref> | ||
== Court cases up to the early 2000s == | == Controversies == | ||
=== Court cases up to the early 2000s === | |||
In the major antitrust case brought by the US Department of Justice, U.S. v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001)<ref>https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/253/34/576095/</ref>, 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 following was said in the court case: "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's browser and, hence, protect Microsoft's operating system monopoly." | In the major antitrust case brought by the US Department of Justice, U.S. v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001)<ref>https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/253/34/576095/</ref>, 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 following was said in the court case: "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's browser and, hence, protect Microsoft's operating system monopoly." | ||
| Line 18: | Line 20: | ||
In the case United States v. Microsoft Corp., 87 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2000)<ref>https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/87/30/2307082/</ref>, Microsoft's Conduct taken as a whole is described as "deliberate assault upon entrepreneurial efforts that, could well have enabled the introduction of competition into the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems". Further, "Microsoft's anticompetitive actions trammeled the competitive process through which the computer software industry generally stimulates innovation and conduces to the optimum benefit of consumers". | In the case United States v. Microsoft Corp., 87 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2000)<ref>https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/87/30/2307082/</ref>, Microsoft's Conduct taken as a whole is described as "deliberate assault upon entrepreneurial efforts that, could well have enabled the introduction of competition into the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems". Further, "Microsoft's anticompetitive actions trammeled the competitive process through which the computer software industry generally stimulates innovation and conduces to the optimum benefit of consumers". | ||
=== Windows 11 === | |||
==== TPM 2.0 Chip Requirements ==== | |||
While being something that can be reasonably circumvented<ref>https://www.starwindsoftware.com/blog/bypass-tpm-and-install-windows-11-on-unsupported-hardware/</ref>, Microsoft's decision to attempt to lock-down Windows 11 to computers with Trusted Platform Module 2.0 chips (TPMs) has forced the hands of both consumers and companies alike to dispose of hardware that would otherwise be perfectly acceptable to use<ref>https://securityonline.info/windows-11s-tpm-2-0-free-software-foundation-fights-forced-upgrades-and-e-waste/</ref>. This has also included Windows 10 users to be frequently reminded by Microsoft to upgrade their hardware to Windows 11<ref>https://www.pcmag.com/news/microsoft-revives-pop-ups-in-windows-10-to-push-windows-11-upgrades</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</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/</ref>. | |||
==== Recall ==== | |||
During 2024, Microsoft unveiled Recall<ref>https://www.techradar.com/computing/windows/microsoft-reveals-ai-powered-recall-feature-to-transform-windows-11s-searchability-while-confirming-hardware-requirements</ref>, marketed as a way to search through what you have done on your computer. This, of course, sparked massive controversy<ref>https://www.techradar.com/computing/windows/microsofts-controversial-recall-feature-for-windows-11-could-already-be-in-legal-hot-water</ref>, especially among security experts<ref>https://www.techtarget.com/searchenterpriseai/feature/Privacy-and-security-risks-surrounding-Microsoft-Recall</ref> that worried about how secure the screenshots the tool takes are<ref>https://news.sky.com/story/microsoft-ai-feature-investigated-by-uk-watchdog-over-screenshots-13141171</ref>, since it could easily document private information like Social Security Numbers, bank account information, and passwords, among other things such as browsing behavior on more mature platforms. This feature was delayed after massive backlash<ref>https://www.malwarebytes.com/blog/news/2024/06/microsoft-recall-delayed-after-privacy-and-security-concerns</ref>, however, so long as users can jailbreak AI assistants, and bypass screenshot encryption, this feature remains not ideal for neither consumers nor businesses handling sensitive information. | |||
== References == | == References == | ||
<references /> | <references /> | ||
[[Category:Companies]] | [[Category:Companies]] | ||