Now Available:

Featured Resource:

line

Newsletter

Email Address:


line

Ask the Expert

Have a question for our resident expert? Email your questions to Greg.

« BREAKING: Redmond Magazine May (Not) Harm Your Computer | Main | Exploring ScriptingAnswers.com PowerShell Training »

The Growing Evidence of Coordinated Misinformation within the anti-Vista Crowd

In short, don't believe everything you read.

Michael over at 4sysops penned another excellent deconstruction of the very same Vista Bashing Initiative I've been openly worrying about here within our community. Michael discusses how intentional misinformation and outright bad data drives the anti-Vista vitriol we keep seeing within the IT press.

If you've paid attention to my Give Vista a Chance series here within our community, then you're familiar with my pro-Vista arguments that illustrate specific features and logical reasons behind why Vista behaves differently than previous Microsoft operating systems. You also know why those behaviors ultimately provide a more manageable and more secure OS than before. Yes, architectural changes in Vista cause some (mostly older) apps and drivers to break, and additional hardware is necessary in some cases, but I've illustrated that these are all for a purpose.

Furthering the pro-Vista messaging, TechTarget asked me to write an opinion piece that again attempts to explain in plain english why the anti-Vista position doesn't hold water. In the June issue, I'll present another argument in our very own Windows Administration in Realtime e-Journal as well.

There is a level of particularly dangerous editorializing about the coordinated misinformation you're seeing out of specific IT press organizations. The job of the press is to educate the reader on news within the industry. Although opinion pieces such as blog posts are simultaneously critical to show the opinions of authors in the know, when those opinions are being shaped by editorial preconditions you the reader lose in the end.

While in my pieces above I've hinted towards widespread anti-Vista messaging, Michael in this post and this post points the finger directly at those news and blog organizations directly engaged in this coordinated campaign to shape the opinions of administrators.

On deep background I recently interviewed a contributor for one IT publishing house. According to this person, the editors with this group have internally mandated that their contributors are forbidden from writing content that shows Vista in a positive light. Any pieces submitted that do not specifically target Vista's faults are summarily rejected. According to my contact, "Any time I write about Windows Vista, I have to write two or three separate pieces with the expectation that most are going to be thrown away because they show too many positives associated with WIndows Vista."

This level of editorializing on the part of the news and blog organizations that we rely on for information is nothing short of an attack on administrators. In the opinion of this blogger, it represents a dangerous misuse of the very bully pulpit that is trusted by readers for accurate information. My justification for the end result of this reasoning was recently validated through a piece written by Adrian Kingsley-Hughes at ZDnet and later analyzed by myself.

In that piece, he polls his readership to determine the reason why readers are skipping Vista and waiting for Windows 7. His third question tells all when it asks Based on what evidence are you giving Vista a miss? As of this writing, 43% of respondants (the plurality) are skipping Vista because I'm taking the word of others that it's not good enough.

That response should illustrate to the reasonable person that any coordinated messaging campaign goes far in shaping the opinions of its readers. Considering the volume coming out of the anti-Vista camp, its no wonder that the vast majority admins I speak with tell me they're skipping Vista and yet can't give me good reasons why.

Let me know your opinions about this position. As a call to action, if you've been swayed by what you read in the press and have developed your own anti-Vista stance, consider another look. By "taking a pass" you're potentially putting your own environment under an unnecessary level of risk. Vista's added security features, better manageability, and enhanced troubleshooting features are compelling arguments towards the upgrade consideration.

And, most important of all, imagine the situation you'll find yourself a year or two down the road. Here, Microsoft releases Windows 7, and you find it to be immaterially different than the VIsta experience -- a future situation that isn't entirely unheard of. Will that reality drive you to keep Windows XP past Microsoft's next release as well?

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.realtime-windowsserver.com/type/mt-tb.cgi/821

Comments

So, why are these "news and blog organizations" so anti-Vista? Apple is paying them? Steve Ballmer beat them up in High School? And who's "coordinating" them?

The situation you describe makes sense only if one assumes that these organizations will lose money should Vista succeed. I can't think of any way in which that would be true, so what's the missing piece here?

In a few words: Seeing Microsoft with egg on their face.

I'm not necessarily arguing that these groups are being "coordinated" either with each other or vis-a-vis any shadow organizations like you suggest. IT people have a tendency to be religious in their likes and dislikes of products and technology, and what I see appears more religious than financially-based.

An example: The first headline in today's ZDnet Tech Update Today e-newsletter reads: "Microsoft hellbent on touch". That's, IMO, a pretty inflamatory lead-in. But as you read down in the newsletter, you've got to search to find the actual story. It isn't a major headline anywhere within the newsletter and in fact is only found half-way down as a third-level insert in a grouping of four other Microsoft stories. Once you find the actual story, its actia; title is "Microsoft is hellbent in bringing touch to you". The story's actual title in the end is somewhat benign.

So why the sensationalism? I don't know directly. Its true that Vista has had an image problem, but its also got a slew of benefits to the business. Is it religious fervor? Possibly. It is tossing a few eggs? Entirely possible. Is it showing only one side of the Vista story? Absolutely.

I myself don't want to be branded a Microsoft sycophant. All I want is balanced editorializing so you the administrator can make up your own mind. If that involves me showing the positive sides of Vista here in this community, then I'll continue.

Post a comment

(All comments are approved by site leader before appearing here. Thanks for commenting!)

line

Greg Shields' Bio:

Greg Shields, is an independent author, instructor, and IT consultant based in Denver, Colorado, and a co-founder of Concentrated Technology. With nearly 15 years of experience in information technology, Greg has developed extensive experience in systems administration, engineering, and architecture specializing in Microsoft systems management, remote application, and virtualization technologies. Greg is a Contributing Editor for Redmond Magazine, MCPmag.com, and Virtualization Review Magazine and is the author of five books, including Windows Server 2008:  What’s New / What’s Changed. Greg is also a highly sought-after instructor and speaker, speaking regularly at conferences like TechMentor Events, and producing computer-based training curriculum for CBT Nuggets.  Greg is a recipient of Microsoft "Most Valuable Professional" award with a specialization in Windows Terminal Services.