Would you Buy a Tester from a Company that Regularly Disses the Tested?
This is hilarious. This morning I get my InfoWorld Today headlines email and in the list is an article titled Find out if your PC can run Windows 7. Clicking through, it seems that the people over at InfoWorld have independently created a test tool that is designed to help you identify if your computer will work with Windows 7.
But there's a problem here: InfoWorld has repeatedly published significant negative reviews of Windows Vista and has recently begun the attack on Windows 7.
In fact, in the very article that advertises this new tool, there are a number of thinly-veiled negative comments to the operating system baked right in. Examples:
- "It seems like a straightforward question. However, in the aftermath of the Vista debacle..."
- "You simply cannot count on Microsoft to provide an honest assessment of Windows system requirements. And as the "Vista Capable" experience has shown us, Microsoft's vendor partners are no better."
- "As a Vista-derived OS, Windows 7 will no doubt levy the same kind of performance "tax" (high overall CPU utilization spread across a massive thread pool) that hobbled its predecessor."
- "...if Vista makes your quad-core monster sweat up a storm today, Windows 7 will have it crying for mercy tomorrow."
Making matters worse, the people at InfoWorld have made a few assumptions in their tool that will likely have the effect of automatically failing machines that might run with Windows 7 just fine. Again, from the article:
- "Note that we've based our Windows 7 compatibility calculator on the October 2008 prerelease version of Windows 7."
- "That's why we've erred on the side of caution by labeling any system with less than two cores -- or with multiple cores running at less than 2GHz -- as incapable of supporting a post-Vista Windows platform."
Every IT professional worth their salt knows that pre-release OS versions don't include code optimizations that happen at the very last step in the development process. Pre-release OSs may also include symbol support and high levels of debugging turned on, which will have the effect of slowing down performance. And, InfoWorld's "err on the side of caution" with an automatic failure for single cores seems to this blogger like a sledgehammer way to drive down the initial impressions of Windows 7.
So, considering all this, would you buy a test tool from a company that prides itself on floating negative impressions of the tested software? I wouldn't.
Email This!
Digg it!
Sphere it!
Del.icio.us
Reddit!
Newsvine
Comments
I would buy and use a test tool from a company that has shown it actually looks at data rather than PR. Of the four "thinly-veiled negative comments" you complain about, the first three are actually pretty fair and objective statements of fact although I'll concede the last one is more than just a little tainted.
As far as your last post about "pre-release OS versions don't include code optimizations that happen at the very last step", the last few iterations of Windows have not had any substantial performance improvements between beta and release and MS admit themselves that very little of the underlying core from Vista was changed in Win7 so it's pretty fair to run tests on the existing base to assess performance on your current systems.
Posted by: compugeek | November 20, 2008 2:21 PM
I have to say that I highly agee with Greg. I can only call these comments as propaganda. Lenin and Stalin would love this stuff. Bring out the black paint and include some in every sentence. Never mind the fact that much consumer hardware is really bad these days.
The major hardware providers are putting out machines that bear all the earmarks of cost cutting. Add to that the "Not up to par" software that is asked to run on the new OS developed by more and more untalented offshore coders who port code from older editions to save time and money "And because they often to not understand the new framework versions" and you have an impossible situation.
Again, these critics vile comments are not constructive and give little details. Just how many different machines have they installed and run the different versions of windows on?
Have they ever had to do a serious project on a MAC?
How was codeing on Linux guys? How's Ruby doing?
Reality: No OS is perfect. And the reason why the Windows OS won the lions share of the market is: "The Real Professionals Have Spoken".
For sure it was not because of TV or radio ADV.
"We the Professionals Deem that Windows is the best overall OS" , not the greatest. But it gets work done, and that ladies and gents is the reason.
I installed Vista ASAP upon release to Manufacturing and gave it a run for it's money by installing in on old laptop hardware. It was not a Factory install with all the garbage that slows down the machine. Then on older P4 desktops and even a P3. Pretty darn good performance, over all. The Learning curve?
Yes, it's there. It's not a security free for all anymore and that's just too bad but IBM's commercials about the Internet in the OS2 days just didn't work out the way they planned, did they. Instead, we have to put more locks on the door because of a bad neighborhood. So. That's Microsoft's fault? I think not.
I would think these critics would spend their time on giving attention to a certain database vendor that causes the PE of a corporation to go down when they buy it and start to remember that Microsoft is the equalizing OS for the market. Not perfect. But really gives you a lot for your money.
Posted by: Curt Spanburgh | April 1, 2009 12:36 PM