Ed Leafe <> wrote: > On Dec 30, 2006, at 7:51 PM, Stephen the Cook wrote: > >>> Uh, the review wasn't for the laptop; it was for the Vista OS. >>> >>> A better analogy would be if Apple sent a killer home theatre >>> system to the reviewer for free with no strings attached, on the >>> hope that he might evaluate the video iPod. >> >> What a load of crap. >> >> Sorry but you have to have a equipment for an OS eval. > > This is a version of Windows, right? You don't need special hardware > for Windows.
Probably. >> The manufacturer, >> M$, provided the equipment and set it properly for the tests to be >> evaluated. > > That in itself should be the headline then: Vista - requires extreme > hardware configuration to run. No. I does require drivers for a all the peripherals correct? And M$ forces the various vendors to make them allowing the manufacturer to put the sticker for the OS on the computer right? Because of the driver possible miss configuration or lack of a driver for some aspect of the laptop, M$ has set one up and it's all good. >> They are trying to stack the deck for a positive eval, sure. >> Making the hardware consistent and taking one major point of the a >> possible problem should be done by any manufacturer in this case. >> I'm sure that Apple did it as well ;-> > > Again, that's my point. You can evaluate Vista on any x86 hardware. > You can also evaluate a video iPod using its built-in screen. Sure, a > whole home theatre will make it look better, and giving it away will > certainly influence the reviewer, consciously or unconsciously. Not even close in a comparison to the reality at hand. You can attempt to load Vista on any x86 hardware and YMMV. Ram, processor, video card are all big factors to the successful running of the software, wouldn't you agree? Because there is a large mix of these M$ cleared that as a SMART advertising expense. Heck they won't pay anything to VFP so why not spend all that cash on the new VISTA. Hehehehe. > The question isn't whether Microsoft was acting ethically. Of course > they weren't; you don't succeed in business by being ethical. Apple > has also acted unethically at various time in the past; I guess you > think that that somehow makes it OK for me, as if I'm some brainless > drone who worships Apple. The issue is the ethics of the reviewers > who either didn't recognize this for the payola it was, or who chose > to ignore that inconvenient fact. Do I think you cross the ethics line for providing the package loaded for the reviewer? No! If there was a 100 dollar bill in the DVD drive and a stock certificate between the screen and the keyboard, then yes. If there is a statement that the reviewer has instructions on how to return the device after the review period is over, even better. If M$ or Apple will just expense the non returned devices as advertising well that is SOP. Consumer reports considers themselves as an independent reviewer because they purchase everything they test. All other reviews could be skewed by free content. I use to review some software for our local computer user group. Some of the manufacturers gave it free others requested that you uninstall it or purchase it because it was shareware priced. Stephen Russell DBA / .Net Developer Memphis TN 38115 901.246-0159 "Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men." Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. http://spaces.msn.com/members/srussell/ -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.0/610 - Release Date: 12/30/2006 2:59 PM _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
