Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Windows 7 Memory Usage Critic Outed As Fraud

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the that's-a-lotta-drama dept.

Bug 451

A few days ago, we ran word of a report alleging that Windows 7 consumed more memory than it should, based on a report from Devil Mountain Software; a followup post linked to Ars Technica's robust deconstruction of that claim. Now the story gets weird: Fred Flowers writes The original story quoted the company's CTO, Craig Barth on the issue. Now, InfoWorld editor in chief Eric Knorr has still more to add. From Knorr's blog at InfoWorld.com: 'On Friday, Feb. 19, we discovered that one of our contributors, Randall C. Kennedy, had been misrepresenting himself to other media organizations as Craig Barth, CTO of Devil Mountain Software (aka exo.performance.network), in interviews for a number of stories regarding Windows and other Microsoft software topics. ... There is no Craig Barth.' Knorr's post goes on to say that Kennedy has been fired from his blogging gig at InfoWorld over this 'serious breach of trust,' and that his blog will be removed."

cancel ×

451 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Eh wouldn't surprise me... (5, Insightful)

Rewind (138843) | more than 3 years ago | (#31223534)

Even with all the real things you can slam Microsoft for, some people feel the need to make things up. Reminds me of that pre-Vista paper by that (I think) NZ guy that was full of stuff that even then people who had the RC knew to be false. Sensational things get page views I guess.

Re:Eh wouldn't surprise me... (2, Interesting)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 3 years ago | (#31223584)

And the world goes on. Even if Win7 had huge memory problems, it wouldn't have stopped people from buying it. Though I wonder how close this comes to an actionable legal issue?

Re:Eh wouldn't surprise me... (3, Insightful)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223632)

>And the world goes on. Even if Win7 had huge memory problems, it wouldn't have stopped people from buying it.

I doubt that. MS's Vista sales were hurt badly by its reputation. Most shops skipped over Vista completely. Apple got a little sales boost too.

>Though I wonder how close this comes to an actionable legal issue?

Christ, what ever happened to basic responsibility? Or buy beware? How about reading reviews before buying something or returning the product if you dont like it? Is lawsuit now the default action?

Re:Eh wouldn't surprise me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31223686)

I'm pretty sure they meant legal action against the writer.

Re:Eh wouldn't surprise me... (2, Interesting)

shentino (1139071) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223698)

Libel, most likely.

Re:Eh wouldn't surprise me... (3, Interesting)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223708)

Vista was mostly looked badly because they introduced new security features. Features that linux zealots always yell about, like proper admin/multiple user control, securing files and directories and so on.

The fact is, people had got used to everything being simple. When MS did add these new security features (as needed now a days), they got called about. I already see the replies mentioning how the UAC is bad and nuisance for user, so i preemptively answer here - It's a lot better than Linux's su and sudo alternatives. With su you give full control over the root account, with sudo you need to write it every time you require root account. UAC is actually a lot better than what there is available for linux, in desktop use (in command line/server use it pwns).

Win7 is more popular now because people have got used to these features. Stupid sheep is, well, stupid and have to take generation to get used to it.

Re:Eh wouldn't surprise me... (0, Troll)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223856)

Vista was mostly looked badly because they introduced new security features.

No, Vista mostly looked badly because it required obscene amounts of resources and still ran slow as shit.

Re:Eh wouldn't surprise me... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31223894)

This. Nevermind that Vista's added "security features" were poorly implemented and ultimately useless, there is absolutely no excuse for an OS to be that bloated.

Re:Eh wouldn't surprise me... (5, Insightful)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223876)

Vista was mostly looked badly because they introduced new security features.

Nope, it was how they did it.

Features that linux zealots always yell about, like proper admin/multiple user control, securing files and directories and so on.

Yep, not only did they rip off sudo (which would've been fine), they managed to screw it up.

It's a lot better than Linux's su and sudo alternatives.

I'm sure you'll tell me how...

With su you give full control over the root account,

Yep, just like UAC.

with sudo you need to write it every time you require root account.

WTF do you mean by "write it"? Did you mean, edit the sudoers file? Yeah, you could do it that way, I suppose. Or did you mean, enter your password? Nope, sudo will cache it for a certain length of time.

UAC is actually a lot better than what there is available for linux, in desktop use...

Yet you haven't explained how it's different than the above.

Win7 is more popular now because people have got used to these features.

Nope, it's because Microsoft finally got it to work, and polished performance to where Win7 is faster than XP, whereas Vista was slower than XP.

I never claimed, and I don't think anyone claimed, that all the design decisions in Vista were bad. No, the issue is that the Vista release, like most Microsoft products, was at best beta quality, more like alpha quality. So Vista was Microsoft's way of, yet again, using their consumers as beta-testers, while collecting some revenue to justify finishing the product and releasing it as Win7.

Re:Eh wouldn't surprise me... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31223944)

Way

too

many

para-

graphs

man!

Re:Eh wouldn't surprise me... (0, Troll)

Totenglocke (1291680) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223888)

It's a lot better than Linux's su and sudo alternatives. With su you give full control over the root account, with sudo you need to write it every time you require root account. UAC is actually a lot better than what there is available for linux, in desktop use

Bullshit. Linux only makes you use sudo / su when you're doing something worthy of administrator privileges - such as installing updates to the system. UAC nags you just about every time you click the mouse - want to run a virus scan? You need to click a UAC box. Want to open Word? You need to click a UAC box. Putting in UAC for the important things would be fine, but what people are annoyed with is that it nags you with a UAC box about EVERYTHING. That's why the first thing I do on a clean install of Windows is turn UAC off. I've rarely been annoyed by sudo when using Linux (Linux on my laptop, Win 7 on the desktop), but I've always been annoyed by it in Windows.

Re:Eh wouldn't surprise me... (0, Troll)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223918)

It absolutely does not nag you about everything - the only reason you might think this is because you have got used running everything in Windows without asking you permission for admin level tasks.

Re:Eh wouldn't surprise me... (0, Troll)

Totenglocke (1291680) | more than 4 years ago | (#31224210)

I do the same tasks in Windows as I do in Linux (well, I also game in Windows or else I'd only use Linux) - you get prompted far, far less in Linux.

Re:Eh wouldn't surprise me... (3, Insightful)

Gregg Alan (8487) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223932)

What in the world are you doing wrong that you get UAC prompts when opening Word? I'd like to see example steps on how to make that happen.

Re:Eh wouldn't surprise me... (1)

compro01 (777531) | more than 4 years ago | (#31224286)

I've managed to get it by having office installed in a folder on the drive root rather than in program files.

Re:Eh wouldn't surprise me... (2, Insightful)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 4 years ago | (#31224034)

i call bullshit. you've never even used vista if your claiming it nags you to run word everytime.

fact is linux fanbois have (rightly) bagged windows for a lack of user security for a long time, and when MS implemented it they bagged it like a bunch of fucking hypocrites.

vista was no where near a flop and not at all a bad OS. i've had much much much worse experiences with linux distros.

I think your just having to eat your words about win7, because it's a fucking good OS. it runs faster then vista or winxp, they've dropped the candy land fucked up theme and given it a slick interface.

Re:Eh wouldn't surprise me... (0, Troll)

Totenglocke (1291680) | more than 4 years ago | (#31224194)

Word is an exaggeration, but it nags CONSTANTLY. There's a reason everyone hates UAC, and it's not because of extra security - it's because it nags over all sorts of minor things. It's like Clippy only for all of Windows instead of just Office.

I think your just having to eat your words about win7, because it's a fucking good OS. it runs faster then vista or winxp, they've dropped the candy land fucked up theme and given it a slick interface.

Who the hell are you talking to? I love Windows 7 and I've said it since the beta came out. I just hate UAC.

Re:Eh wouldn't surprise me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31224092)

You may want to get some recent software. I haven't run a version of Word older than Word 2002 on Vista; perhaps older versions DO require admin - however no modern version does. I just started a virus scan on my machine and it did not require a UAC prompt. If yours really does, you may want to get a new version from your vendor. Do note that if the application is manifested as "highestAvailable" it will ask for admin from an admin level user, but will not ask for it from a standard user. Honestly, UAC prompts are few and far between for most people. In my daily use as a USER (not as a tech support person or developer), I see a UAC prompt from Vista about as often as I see a GUI Sudo prompt on Ubuntu. On Win 7, it is even less. Now, if you do tech support or are a developer you will see them more often since you are doing admin level things. For this, bring up an admin level command prompt and start the things that are going to generate a prompt from there so that you don't get that oh so annoying prompt.

Re:Eh wouldn't surprise me... (5, Insightful)

asdf7890 (1518587) | more than 4 years ago | (#31224070)

Vista was mostly looked badly because they introduced new security features.

This was one of the issues, yes, but not the only one and not even the most important one for many users. Vista's key problem was lack of drivers for a lot of hardware and some of the drivers available for common parts were not all that stable initially even though they passed relevant certififcation. Second came performance especially on "vista capable" (or "vista ready", which ever was the lower designation) machines (many reported significant issues on better kit too, though this situation improved greatly with service pack 1). UAC was thrid on the average user's list of hates though it sounded worse as it was usually the straw that started the major rant "it asked me for confirmation X times before very slowly failing to work because of driver problems!".

UAC is not a bad idea, though it is not IMO particularly well implemented. They tried to so sudo but for the traditional Windows way of working (i.e. admin by default and adding blockers, where the sudo way starts unprivelaged). The result didn't fit as well as intended with Windows users processes and was sometimes overly naggy (three prompts for some file operations where sudo would need one escalation request) and just ended up being more OK buttons for clueless users to click, and to top it off it worked badly for people expecting a more linux/bsd/other way of doing thing - so essentually they failed to please either major group (i.e. neither those the feature was intended to protect nor those most likely to make a noise about such things were happy with it).

Re:Eh wouldn't surprise me... (1)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#31224134)

However, what you describe is mostly fault of existing software and drivers. MS had to either 1) bring in the new security features 2) maintain support for old programs. I say they chose the better option. They redefined their driver model in Vista and that's the reason why there wasn't so many drivers for older hardware available upon launch. But Vista was out for a few years and Win7 uses the same model, so companies had more time to do their drivers now.

Disclaimer: I still use Vista on my desktop because moving everything to Win7 is a lot of work and it works a lot better than XP.

Re:Eh wouldn't surprise me... (1)

jpmorgan (517966) | more than 4 years ago | (#31224316)

Yes, as we all know XP was 40% faster than Vista [infoworld.com] !

Oh wait...

Re:Eh wouldn't surprise me... (5, Informative)

RzUpAnmsCwrds (262647) | more than 4 years ago | (#31224114)

With su you give full control over the root account, with sudo you need to write it every time you require root account.

I like UAC, and I'm kind of an MS fanboy, but that's just wrong. There are solutions like gksudo that work much like UAC, including a user-friendly GUI and caching of credentials. Not to mention PolicyKit and other capability-based security mechanisms. Every major distro (e.g. Ubuntu, Fedora, etc.) has these features by default.

Re:Eh wouldn't surprise me... (2, Insightful)

harlows_monkeys (106428) | more than 4 years ago | (#31224214)

Vista was mostly looked badly because they introduced new security features.

I think a much bigger factor was that it was so long between XP and Vista, people had forgotten what XP was like at the start. When XP launched, it received many of the same complaints Vista received. It wasn't until a couple of service packs that people started to like XP. After a couple of service packs, Vista too was fine.

Re:Eh wouldn't surprise me... (1)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 4 years ago | (#31224320)

Not really. Vista still sucks because of the way they implemented UAC, with way more prompts than were needed, something they fixed in 7. As for XP, most people liked it pretty well at the start because it was infinitely more stable than 95/98/ME, although the introduction of "Home" and "Professional" grades was an unnecessarily expensive way to distribute software (and still is). It was a bit more resource hungry than 2k, but ran 95/98 games just fine, the usual main complaint. The main bitch about Vista was software that simply would not run. We have software from 2004 that will not run right on Vista or 7 (runs at about 10% of regular speed...) and not looking to upgrade it because it "works" on XP, but not on vista/7/wine. I still can't get AOE3 to install at all on my Win7 box, and it is a Microsoft product that is supposed to work fine.

Re:Eh wouldn't surprise me... (1)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | more than 4 years ago | (#31224252)

No, Windows Vista failed because of massive bloatware, continuing failures to properly _use_ the new security features, the redesigned GUI's that Microsoft failed to document or use consistently, massive overuse of RAM for features no one except Microsoft wanted (such as the hideous search handling), and the plans to include WinFS, which distorted quite a few filesystem components but turned out to be an exceptionally bad idea and was thrown out. (XML-based filesystems: how foolish can you be?)

Windows 7 is taking over Windows Vista, as it should. It's also finally cutting into Windows XP because XP has been lacking the few features that people actually wanted, such as completely discarding Internet Explorer 6, vendor support for 64-bit drivers, and better support for multiple cores.

Re:Eh wouldn't surprise me... (1)

zach_the_lizard (1317619) | more than 4 years ago | (#31224256)

Yep, having a pop up that asks me if I would like to continue everytime I run an older game is really cutting edge security. It would make more sense if it had some actual power to deny access; you know, if it required a password, like sudo does. It does not, so it has no ability to protect. It has, however, scared my less tech savvy family members into not running some older programs that they used to run because of fear that they were somehow messing something up. Sudo also can be set to work for a certain amount of time without requiring a password, which can be very useful to avoid annoyance but still provide security. UAC cannot do that, to my knowledge. Until Windows 7, it was either off or on; now we have slightly more finegrained control.

Re:Eh wouldn't surprise me... (0)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#31224304)

if it required a password, like sudo does. It does not, so it has no ability to protect.

This is because you are yourself running as admin account. If you set up normal user account, UAC will require you to type in admin password to continue.

Re:Eh wouldn't surprise me... (1)

xbeefsupreme (1690182) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223726)

I think he meant the possibility of MS suing the guy who lied about memory issues.

Re:Eh wouldn't surprise me... (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#31224008)

Maybe he wasn't lying about the Windows 7 memory issues? Maybe Windows 7 uses all that memory when his Devil Mountain Sh!tware is installed?

Re:Eh wouldn't surprise me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31223802)

Until it's legal to beat the shit out of people like this, lawsuits are the next best thing we are legally allowed to do. Sorry it doesn't fit in with your childish fantasy world.

Re:Eh wouldn't surprise me... (1)

Evil Shabazz (937088) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223904)

Christ, what ever happened to basic responsibility? Or buy beware? How about reading reviews before buying something or returning the product if you dont like it? Is lawsuit now the default action?

I took the parent to mean actionable by Microsoft. The guy was intentionally spreading negative press about their product, which would hurt the ability of the buyer to do the very thing you suggest - go out and read reviews about the product (Windows 7) before buying it.

Looks like karma (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31224042)

And what about Ballmer/MS saying don't use linux because they violate 200 patents? All sorts of people have asked which patents, a simple question to answer, so if they are valid it can be fixed, yet from MS..crickets. One blog post versus the head guy of Microsoft spreading stories? How much have all the various Linux companies and Linux professionals all over the planet been hurt by his statements, and by MS actions over the years?

I'm not defending this blogger at all, far from it, that was a shitty thing to do, but let's put this whole thing into some perspective. MS has been the big bully for years and years and years, they got to where they are now by some pretty questionable behavior, behavior that has not ever stopped, despite even governments getting on their case about it.

We wouldn't even be reading about this blogger if these governments had done what needed doing years ago, bust that company up, shake them up hard so they stop being so "ethically challenged".

Re:Eh wouldn't surprise me... (4, Interesting)

jpmorgan (517966) | more than 4 years ago | (#31224224)

However it's interesting to note that Randall Kennedy was one of the standard bearers in the public campaign against Vista. If you go through the most egregious condemnations of Vista posted to /., you'll find that a disproportionate number were sourced to Randall Kennedy at Infoworld. Many of which were about as truthful as the Windows 7 memory article.

Kennedy has been an extraordinarily biased source about Microsoft for a long time, and over the past few years I've lost a lot of karma pointing this out. For me this feels like vindication.

Re:Eh wouldn't surprise me... (1)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223666)

You know, about the only item of interest I have in this whole debacle are the disk queues. I had more HD failures under Vista than I have ever had with any previous operating system. The drives ran constantly. I can only assume it was for pre-caching and possibly indexing. Although server storage would handle this without breaking a sweat, it appeared to be too much for the general desktop/laptop drives. Either the vendors I had trusted or years had pushed out some really shitty components, or the OS was at fault.

Did anyone else experience a greater failure rate for HD's under Vista?

Re:Eh wouldn't surprise me... (1)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223722)

With Vista I had this consistent problem where my SATA drives would just lose communication with the system, and it would blue screen. This would happen about once every month or two. Since moving to 7, I haven't had an issue with SATA at all. Overall I don't notice nearly as much disk thrashing in Win7 as there was in Vista.

Re:Eh wouldn't surprise me... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31223770)

Of the 17 HD's used between my family and I haven't seen a HD failure since 2005 and at least 7 of those are older than 2004... note that punching or kicking your computer anytime you're mad at it will increase HD failure rates. So maybe Vista does have something to do with your increased failure rates.

Re:Eh wouldn't surprise me... (-1, Troll)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223672)

Sensational things get page views I guess.

Faults in Microsoft Products aren't sensational, they're just a lot of unsurprising ho-hum background noise that we get used to. Microsoft finally releasing a decent product would be sensational.

Re:Eh wouldn't surprise me... (-1, Offtopic)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223690)

Those NZ guys are always lying about stuff before it comes out. Like that one crazy guy [wikipedia.org] who claimed to "fly" in March of 1903. Everyone knows the Americans invented flight in December. What boloney.

Can't trust'em.

Re:Eh wouldn't surprise me... (1)

Runefox (905204) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223908)

Hey, thanks for that link, I'd just been thinking about that guy but I couldn't for the life of me remember his name. =D

Re:Eh wouldn't surprise me... (2, Insightful)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 4 years ago | (#31224144)

Ya, well, it was supposed to sound funnier...

Re:Eh wouldn't surprise me... (1)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 4 years ago | (#31224328)

BTW, they're still digging the hole deeper if you check-back to their blog:

http://exo-blog.blogspot.com/2010/02/editorial-what-took-you-so-long.html [blogspot.com]

In the latest installment, they're quoting somebody known only as "SirBruce" who backs up their story. Of course, they don't link to SirBruce's actual article, they only quote from it a bit... I'm sure whoever he is, he's not just some 12-year-old in his parents' attic.

He's also actively debating all-comers, it looks like. He plays off the Ars debunker's computer as being "misconfigured" somehow.

Nobody has yet brought up in that blog post that he's a liar as well as being completely technically inept, so please be my guest if you like.

Reason (1)

xbeefsupreme (1690182) | more than 3 years ago | (#31223542)

I wonder what his motivation for lying like about it was.

Re:Reason (4, Insightful)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 3 years ago | (#31223568)

That's simple. Money.

Re:Reason (2, Funny)

xbeefsupreme (1690182) | more than 3 years ago | (#31223590)

I see, makes me wonder what he would lie about to get sex.

Re:Reason (5, Funny)

Trev311 (1161835) | more than 4 years ago | (#31224202)

That's simple. Money.

Re:Reason (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31223594)

Mm-hmm. Sensationalism is always what brings in the viewers. *COUGH*PUNDITS*COUGH*FOXNEWS*COUGH*

Re:Reason (-1, Offtopic)

Totenglocke (1291680) | more than 3 years ago | (#31223574)

I wonder what his motivation for lying like about it was.

He's a Mac fanboy. While I say that jokingly, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if it turns out to be the truth.

Re:Reason (-1, Flamebait)

xbeefsupreme (1690182) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223634)

Yeah, it seems as though apple (and it's customers) are quicker to bash their competitors than explain the features of their own products.

Re:Reason (1)

node 3 (115640) | more than 4 years ago | (#31224040)

Yeah, it seems as though apple (and it's customers) are quicker to bash their competitors than explain the features of their own products.

Says the guy bashing Mac users...

Re:Reason (1)

xbeefsupreme (1690182) | more than 4 years ago | (#31224080)

That was an observation, a bash would be: "Macs cannot play games". There is a difference.

Re:Reason (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 4 years ago | (#31224282)

That was an observation, a bash would be: "Macs cannot play games". There is a difference.

That would be bashing Mac, not bashing Mac users.

Re:Reason (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31223648)

Well, I'm sure Apple is a little worried considering Windows 7 is actually good. Now, it's still Windows but let's be honest, it's pretty good. Consider UNIX has been around for getting on 40 years meanwhile Windows is what, 15 years old? Given that I would say yeah it's starting to getting pretty decent.

Re:Reason (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31223882)

More like 25 years old... well, 24 and a half - The first version wasn't Windows 95 after all... (which may have just been a typo on your part, but it reminds me of a kid at a summer camp I worked at that overheard a conversation I was having with a friend about "original nintendo", to which the kid interjected that his favourite game for original nintendo was MarioKart 64.)

Re:Reason (1)

EvanED (569694) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223972)

More like 25 years old... well, 24 and a half - The first version wasn't Windows 95 after all...

You could make a decent argument that the first version of what we now call "Windows" was NT 3.1, released in 1993. That'd put Windows at a little less than 17 years old. This is certainly true of the kernel.

Counting the Windows subsystem from that point would be a bit more sketchy; going back to the pre-NT Windows days would be fair for that. Of course, if you take that position, you could also say that going back to 1980 -- for the MS-DOS subsystem -- is fair, which would put it at 30 years.

Re:Reason (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31223986)

it reminds me of a kid at a summer camp I worked at that overheard a conversation I was having with a friend about "original nintendo", to which the kid interjected that his favourite game for original nintendo was MarioKart 64

Oh god. Dealing with kids like that annoys me to no end. Not only because they don't have the foresight that Nintendo existed prior to their living memory, but also because it makes me feel old.

For that matter, you can't really appreciate what we have now if you grew up on Halo like some kids today.

Re:Reason (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31223922)

Windows 7 is actually good.

Well, that's stretching it a bit. Windows 7 is heaps better than Vista, but I've had bowel movements which function as an OS better than Vista does.

Re:Reason (-1, Flamebait)

node 3 (115640) | more than 4 years ago | (#31224132)

Well, I'm sure Apple is a little worried considering Windows 7 is actually good.

No, you can rest assured that Apple is not worried. They know they have a better product (and they're right).

Now, it's still Windows but let's be honest, it's pretty good.

You're *almost* saying it right. "It's pretty good for Windows" is what you're saying without coming right out and saying it. And that's true. But as a consumer OS, Mac OS X is better. As a server OS, Linux is better.

The only two cases where Windows is truly better is in an office environment, and gaming. In the office environment, Windows 7 isn't really any better than XP. Worse, in many ways, better in a few. For gaming, presently, XP is still better, but XP is sort of a dead-end OS in that regard, so Windows 7 is a better choice, even if it currently isn't the better system for games.

Consider UNIX has been around for getting on 40 years meanwhile Windows is what, 15 years old? Given that I would say yeah it's starting to getting pretty decent.

This is not only factually incorrect, but it doesn't even make sense in any way. Are you saying that Windows is pretty good, for such a young OS? That's hardly praise.

Thing is, aside from games and an office setting, I can think of no compelling reason to choose Windows over its competitors. I know this is partially subjective, and other people will have other values and opinions, but really, taken in context of the broader computing realm, it's hard to call Windows "pretty good", or "actually good". When taken in the context solely of Windows itself, then sure, it's definitely getting better.

Unfortunately for MS, so is their competition, so it's not really a net win for them.

Re:Reason (0, Offtopic)

Totenglocke (1291680) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223862)

Obviously we have Mac fanboy's with mod points. If you bothered to read my comment, I said it was a joke - besides, the person asked what his motivation for lying might be and I gave a possible explanation, so it's far from off topic.

Re:Reason (1, Insightful)

node 3 (115640) | more than 4 years ago | (#31224170)

Obviously we have Mac fanboy's with mod points.

Using terms like "Mac fanboy's[sic]" is enough to be off topic. And it's not a joke when you next say, essentially, "but it's probably true".

Your mom's a whore. I'm joking, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were true. You're a PC wanker, and if you mod me down, I'll just blame it on other PC wankers.

See what I'm getting at?

Re:Reason (1)

Totenglocke (1291680) | more than 4 years ago | (#31224232)

Let's see, who are the two groups of people who would make up lies about Windows 7, the best OS Microsoft has made? Hmmm, there's only two groups - can you think of them? Oh, right, Mac fanboys and Linux fanboys. Taking a guess and picking one of the two is NOT being off topic.

But hey, why use common sense when you can just troll anyone who doesn't blindly bash Windows.

Re:Reason (1)

Narpak (961733) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223630)

I wonder what his motivation for lying like about it was.

Duh, Paranoia 101; The guy was obviously a covert operative from Microsofts Intelligence Service put there to discredit views that criticize Windows. As my conspiracy teacher told me "Never attribute to stupidity what can be explained by malicious intent from our evil alien overlords!"

Re:Reason (1)

xbeefsupreme (1690182) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223668)

That actually makes a little bit of sense now that I think about it.

Re:Reason (1)

node 3 (115640) | more than 4 years ago | (#31224204)

Duh, Paranoia 101; The guy was obviously a covert operative from Microsofts Intelligence Service put there to discredit views that criticize Windows.

I know you're joking, but MS has done shit like that in the past. I don't think that's the case here, but there's nothing in "The Shady, Underhanded Guide to Dominating a Market" that MS hasn't done before.

You should read some of the emails from the anti-trust cases. They are very revealing.

Re:Reason (1)

icepick72 (834363) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223662)

>> I wonder what his motivation for lying like about it was

The same motivation you had for that grammatical error: stupidity. Nothing personal, it's just an analogy.

Re:Reason (1)

xbeefsupreme (1690182) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223750)

What would be the correct way to arrange the words?

Re:Reason (1)

icepick72 (834363) | more than 4 years ago | (#31224212)

Why do you assume the word arrangement is a problem?

Re:Reason (1)

xbeefsupreme (1690182) | more than 4 years ago | (#31224310)

Oh, I see my mistake now.

Re:Reason (2, Insightful)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223782)

Stupidity is a meta-motivation, not a motivation itself. Being stupid makes certain motivations possible.

Re:Reason (5, Funny)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223788)

I wonder what his motivation for lying like about it was.

I'm not sure, but Craig Barth is an anagram for Hair Grab Ct, which is obviously the location of the next clue.

Re:Reason (2, Funny)

bhassel (1098261) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223836)

Incidentally, it is also an anagram for Grab at Rich

Re:Reason (1)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223872)

I'm not sure, but Craig Barth is an anagram for Hair Grab Ct, which is obviously the location of the next clue.

It's also an anagram for Rig bar chat. Anything to stir controversy, then...

Re:Reason (2, Funny)

Minwee (522556) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223960)

It's also an anagram for Rig bar chat. Anything to stir controversy, then...

And since what he did was rig a bar _chart_, we know that the culprit must be from Boston. Let's travel there and see if we can find another clue leading to Carmen Sandiego.

Re:Reason (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223860)

I suspect he believed the content of his message, and was willing to go to whatever lengths necessary to get the message out, even if that meant fraud elsewhere. You know, the kind of guy who dreams of outing an evil megacorp.

The fraud was not in the claims about Windows (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31223636)

from what it looks like. Rather, it was about the identity of the blogger. It looks like he was a paid blogger for InfoWorld and a Windows performance analyst at the same time, and wrote the Windows memory consumption post under a pseudonym without disclosing the relationship to InfoWorld. It doesn't mean the memory consumption article's contents are faked or wrong. Its conclusions are disputed, but that's a a separate issue. The issue is disclosure of its authorship.

Re:The fraud was not in the claims about Windows (2, Insightful)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223676)

To me it seems like there was fraud in both cases. He lied about his identity, and about how Win7 "hogs" memory.

Re:The fraud was not in the claims about Windows (4, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223774)

No, he lied about his identity. He was just plain wrong about Win7. He's a liar and an idiot, but they're separate issues.

Fortunately, my user CSS puts a big red [IDIOT WARNING] after any link to InfoWorld, so I didn't make the mistake of clicking on it and giving them some ad revenue.

Re:The fraud was not in the claims about Windows (5, Insightful)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223912)

I really don't think it was a case of him merely "being wrong" about Win7. His software company sells a suite that is supposed to make Windows "run better". He had a direct motivation for lying about the performance of Windows. That's fraud in my book, and not merely "being wrong".

Re:The fraud was not in the claims about Windows (5, Informative)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223992)

Re:The fraud was not in the claims about Windows (1)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 4 years ago | (#31224058)

Wow just look at his comments. He's a real piece of work. No shame at all, and playing it off like he's independently wealthy from the software he sold/sells.

Re:The fraud was not in the claims about Windows (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31224238)

Windows 7 *IS* a proven memory hog! Why deny the nose on your face??? What is the point of all this pre-loading nonsense when applications start in 1-2 seconds at most off hard disk. Just plain simply Microsoft didn't have anything better to do!

Re:The fraud was not in the claims about Windows (1)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 4 years ago | (#31224258)

Too dumb to be a good troll.

Re:The fraud was not in the claims about Windows (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31223716)

The bottom line is that the articles contents *ARE* wrong. Any attempt to divert attention from that fact is disingenuous.

Re:The fraud was not in the claims about Windows (1)

postmortem (906676) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223772)

Even if there is remote possibility that he didn't know better, it does not give him rights to spread rumors.

With so many fake experts, no wonder truth is hard to come by. These 'experts' prey on gullible people who know nothing more than to blame Microsoft. Often they don't know much themselves.

One good example is myth that you need to use System Configuration Utility msconfig utility to properly set up number of processors. That muth is truth on thousands of pages on internet. Although max number of processors is used by default, and msconfig option is meant only for troubleshooting, many idiots believe they 'improve performance' by setting same number of processors as it were without turning that on.
For example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmUXx-szfJI [youtube.com] - again advice is false.

Re:The fraud was not in the claims about Windows (1)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 4 years ago | (#31224100)

It doesn't mean the memory consumption article's contents are faked or wrong.

To be clear, they *are* wrong. But this particular article isn't about that... there was one friday or yesterday discussing how wrong the memory consumption figures were.

Maybe Mr Kennedy ... (4, Funny)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223764)

... just had a memory problem of his own?

Stay Glassy.. (4, Funny)

greg_barton (5551) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223798)

Was he also CEO of Jukt Micronics?

More information (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31223820)

ZDNet, an InfoWorld competitor, was about to go public with an exposé on Randall C. Kennedy and Devil Mountain Software [zdnet.com] , but InfoWorld actually beat it to the punch by disclosing the matter itself.

InfoWorld's editor in chief, Eric Knorr, should be commended for dealing this matter quickly and decisively when he discovered Mr. Kennedy's deception. At the same time, he should think very carefully about the series of decisions that led to this outcome.

Randall C. Kennedy was an InfoWorld blogger known for his outrageous, inflammatory posts. Often these posts appeared to disregard the facts, overinflate the issues, or otherwise ignore the tenets of basic journalism in favor of sensationalism and manufactured furor. Doubtless InfoWorld appreciated the traffic such posts drove to its site. What it should have realized, however, was that beyond contributing to InfoWorld's success, Mr. Kennedy had a personal incentive for generating that traffic: promoting his own company, Devil Mountain Software. With that as his motive, he had far less incentive to consider InfoWorld's journalistic integrity when crafting his blog posts. Preserving that integrity was the job of InfoWorld's editorial staff. They failed to do so.

Compounding the issue is InfoWorld's decision to partner with Mr. Kennedy on the "Windows Sentinel" project, InfoWorld's in-house branded version of Devil Mountain Software's exo.performance.network Windows monitoring product. The original post announcing Windows Sentinel is currently hidden behind a password [infoworld.com] , but the Google cache [209.85.229.132] clearly shows that InfoWorld was aware that Mr. Kennedy was behind Devil Mountain Software all along:

Today, I'm happy to announce the beta version of InfoWorld Windows Sentinel, a joint project with the exo.performance.network founded by InfoWorld Contributing Editor Randall C. Kennedy. ... According to Randall, the main point is "to develop a more concise picture of the Windows computing landscape.

InfoWorld's editorial staff should have seen that allowing a contributor to use InfoWorld's brand to promote his own company's products and/or services constituted a conflict of interest at best, and at worst, a serious breach of InfoWorld's responsibility to provide truthful, unbiased reporting to its readers.

InfoWorld needs to think very carefully about how to proceed in future if it hopes to recover its integrity after this incident. In an age where publications are under increasing pressure to demonstrate their power to drive revenue, it is more important than ever that editors take a stand for the paramount importance of high-quality, thorough, accurate reporting and editorials, untainted by financial interests or the pursuit of personal gain. InfoWorld stumbled by continuing to support Randall C. Kennedy when it should have, at the very least, questioned his judgment. It can and must do better.

Re:More information (4, Interesting)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223976)

In an age where publications are under increasing pressure to demonstrate their power to drive revenue, it is more important than ever that editors take a stand for the paramount importance of high-quality, thorough, accurate reporting and editorials, untainted by financial interests or the pursuit of personal gain. InfoWorld stumbled by continuing to support Randall C. Kennedy when it should have, at the very least, questioned his judgment. It can and must do better.

I suspect you are the editor of a publication in competition to InfoWorld. Your arguments are carefully thought out, your written English is impeccable, your paragraph construction is correct, you are careful with names and you're posting Anonymous Coward.

Nothing wrong with all that (or anything wrong with your post) but it's a shame I can't add you to my friends list. I would have, for that post.

Re:More information (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#31224112)

I suspect you are the editor of a publication in competition to InfoWorld. Your arguments are carefully thought out, your written English is impeccable, your paragraph construction is correct, you are careful with names ...

Based on your acute observations I suspect he meant to post on a sight other than /.

Windows 7 is pretty good. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31223850)

I upgraded from XP to Windows 7 and I like it. Everything seems to install/load/work a lot faster. It was pretty cool for $120 that I got both 32 and 64-bit versions.

Good for them.. (0)

FartKnockerz (1750222) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223864)

While I have never considered InfoWorld the pinnacle of journalism nor anything more than a regurgitation machine, I say good for them.

It takes balls to publicly retract something like this.

However, the 'damage' to InfoWorld's 'credibility' with Mr. Kennedy as a contributor/blogger is immense. They washed their hands of him faster than a John squirting himself with hand sanitizer after a nasty romp with a meth-induced hooker.

I am somewhat mystified how Mr. Kennedy thought that spreading FUD would actually help his career. Interesting tact..

So what about Gregg Keizer? (4, Interesting)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | more than 4 years ago | (#31223966)

According to the linked reports (both those in the summary and this one at ZDNet- http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=31024 [zdnet.com] ) the only reporter for InfoWorld who "Barth" was quoted by was Gregg Keizer. This raises a question: Did Keizer know about this deception? And if not, how did he get contacted by Barth initially? It is possible the Keizer was deceived but some sort of answer would be nice.

Gregg Keizer says no (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31224278)

Keizer's personal take on the situation can be read here [computerworld.com] .

Let me guess (1)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 4 years ago | (#31224006)

Seems like the guy thought it was just a white lie.

I'd guess this guy's never done academic research. The profs in my school days would go mega fundy when it came anywhere near the notion of research integrity. They took crap on our GPAs every nown and then to make examples, and burned the notion into our heads.

Funny, I hired him for a job once (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31224124)

We used to use him to cobble up sales plans. He'd do some performance reports under a pseudonym, quote these fake 3rd parties in a report, then we'd produce a whole range of sales materials quoting all these 'different' sources and the roll up.

Took the analysts about a year to figure out that it was just one guy. Which was fine because the guy was hard to handle. He was like a teenager. When we fired him, he turned into a big problem.

First "Can I have his job" post! (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 4 years ago | (#31224130)

... because I can troll^wblog with the best of them :-)

NEWS! Slashdot doesn't check facts, gets letter. (3, Funny)

History's Coming To (1059484) | more than 4 years ago | (#31224148)

So Slashdot posted a second hand story from another site with a (potentially) misleading headline, without checking the facts, because it would drive traffic? And now they've had a letter from a lawyer? Big surprise. I'd be proud to get banned for this post.

HAHAHAH ASSHOLE. (0, Flamebait)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 4 years ago | (#31224168)

Hope microsoft sues him.

Doesn't make memory usage good though. (-1, Troll)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#31224242)

All that you see when you use just Windows 7, should in no way ever go over 256 MB! All the rest is bloat. Like using 64-bit values to store single boolean values. Like having a bazillion of 32-bit animated icons and shit in memory. Like having services running in the background, that optimize what would have no need for optimizing, weren’t it for those services running. Etc, etc, etc

Slashdot get trolled, news at 11 (4, Informative)

beakerMeep (716990) | more than 4 years ago | (#31224322)

I wonder if Slashdot will follow up on the anti-adobe fake-flash-developer cant-handle-mobile-development-becuase-there-are-no-roll-overs troll that's further down? Yeah unlikely.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?