| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Microsoft's Been Swift-Boated, Now What? | |
|
||
| Time: 08:48 EST/13:48 GMT | News Source: SuperSite for Windows | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
You've no doubt seen Apple's infamous Switcher ads. Who hasn't? In ad after ad, a Windows PC--played to humorous effect by affable comedian and "The Daily Show" contributor John Hodgman--is played the fool by Mac, a barely tolerable student slacker played by Justin Long (who I'm sure is a fine guy in real life). The Switcher ads are painfully effective, though anyone with even a modest understanding of what's really going on today in the PC marketplace will tell you that Apple's claims often stretch the bounds of credibility. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 225 Last | Next |
The time now is
1:59:10 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 23275 (68.186.182.236) at 6/25/2008 10:22:31 AM |
|
OK, I just puked.
Couple of reasons for that, but today, this article pushed me over the top. First the analogy is all wrong. Sen Kerry got hammered because of how he wrapped himself in his service - that worked for Kennedy, because no one but the press had access to a means of publishing... not so in the age of the Internet. It was about service, where it is okay to say "I served" and that's it - you leave it at that. Second and the worst part about this is the idea that people in the channel have to depend upon Microsoft to step up and deliver the message to customers. That is pure BS. Tech people and companies in the channel own the relationship with the customer. The professionals in our industry simply need to share what they use and do with customers. It sells everytime. If the products are good/great and the IT Pro sincerely believes that, then that is what will sell and no ad for and or against any one product is much of a barrier, or help frankly. Oh no... those who stood around and did nothing, or took the easy way out and just hung onto XP while bashing Vista without explaining why it was different.... I say give them no quarter at all. Those that did all the hard work and understand Vista and how to communicate just how strong it is, will have no trouble.... and to those that slipped back and forth across each side of the fence... so as not to piss one side off too much.... but never made a stand... yes.... that is puke on your shoes... I am sorry... I just could not help myself. |
| #2 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 6/25/2008 10:51:48 AM |
|
"Swift-boated"... let's call it what it really is: smeared. It's funny how people remember things differently depending on their world view. As I saw it, Kerry got smeared by a bunch of lying right-wingers who were upset that Kerry was critical of Veitnam and critical of Bush and the illegal war he started in Iraq. Bush and the Republicans seemed to have no problems with Kerry being "swift-boated". My experience with Microsoft supporters has been that, by & large, they are also Republican supporters. Having their own boy being "swift-boated" now doesn't seem so appealing now, I guess.
I think you're expecting more than the channel is willing to give you. The channel is now mainly bigbox stores and other major box-movers who have no interest in the expense of sending messages to customers. They want to move 'em in, sell 'em fast and move 'em out. Ever second in between costs them money. They want MS to market its own wares. This is not ideal, but it is what it is. Lastly, I protest your faulty characterization of Vista supporters as courageous & heroic white knights and everyone else being an evil, cowardly troll. |
| #3 By 23275 (68.186.182.236) at 6/25/2008 11:10:57 AM |
|
Latch, Sir, you'd protest no matter what I did. I don't understand the basis for the remark.
One could easily build great Vista machines from day one - it was not hard at all. It was in fact, far easier early on than with any previous new version of Windows. Microsoft does not build great customer experiences, or great machines, or great networks - partners do. It's not Microsoft's responsibility - they just create the means to create great products based upon their software and tools. It's the responsibility of the partner to do their part and sincerity is key. I've said it a hundred times, if Vista really did suck, I would not use it, or build around it. I tested it. Tested it again and again. There was more in it that I liked than I did not like. I started to use it day to day and discovered that using XP after Vista was a bummer - I missed Vista each time. I built good products around it that I believe in and then tested all customer software. I grew to really like it and my sense of it, and the sincerity around that sense comes through in communication to customers. When customers "see" how it is better and how it is used, there is no selling... we say repeatedly, "We just share what we ourselves use" - then we stand behind the products and services. That is what a good partner does. It's not one-sided and it's not fair-weathered. It has to be based upon sincerity and integrity.... and yes, I do most certainly regard people who yap on about something being "bad" when they have no real experience with it as being wrong headed... and well... sorta empty. Candidly, I feel bad for them. |
| #4 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 6/25/2008 11:31:45 AM |
|
"My experience with Microsoft supporters has been that, by & large, they are also Republican supporters"
I consider myself a Microsoft supporter (though not a fanboy) and I have not voted republican since 1988. I vote for whom I feel is the best candidate. And I try to use the best software for the job. |
| #5 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 6/25/2008 1:09:44 PM |
|
#3: I'm sure you do a good job, but when people are looking for a computer, they will most likely wander on down to Wal-Mart or Best Buy or CostCo or some place where they feel they will get a deal. They don't shop based on where the sales staff are the most knowledgeable. That's reality. And in that reality, it is up to MS to deluge the public with TV, radio and print ads telling the Vista story the way MS wants it told, and not rely on some teenage, minimum-wage sales drone to do all of that for MS.
#4: Wow, someone who analyzes the issues and votes accordingly. Refreshing. Much better than the sheeple who vote based on the way their family has always voted, regardless of the issues of the day and the performance of their preferred party. |
| #6 By 92283 (142.32.208.233) at 6/25/2008 1:22:52 PM |
|
John Kerry wasn't smeared. He was criticized by vets who knew him and had actually been there.
Vietnam combat records posted on John F. Kerry's campaign website for the month of January 1969 as evidence of his service aboard swift boat No. 94 describe action that occurred before Kerry was skipper of that craft, according to the officer who said he commanded the boat at the time." http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/kerry/articles/2004/04/23/discrepancies_noted_in_kerrys_record/ As for the war in Iraq ... the Senate voted for it. "In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions. Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133." http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/ It is typical of left wing spock-eared slime like you to tell huge lies. |
| #7 By 23275 (68.17.42.120) at 6/25/2008 3:25:33 PM |
|
Microsoft right leaning? I think not.
I think they have to be very center left - being a global provider and if they wish to remain a-political. Now, years ago, technologists were nearly all very conservative in terms of foreign policy and economics, but almost Libertarian as social issues were concerned - e.g., very focused and limited government chartered to address large issues, which impact all people - like protect and defend the constitution and work to extend liberty to all peoples (while extolling the virtues of individual responsibility). These days government is huge and involved in many aspects of social engineering - albeit, I will give all those involved credit for meaning well... the reality is that it does not work. When a government touches on everything in our lives, there are too many areas to disagree on... government becomes paralyzed and unable to address all concerns for all people. People need to govern themselves largely and that means small municipal governments that local people can recall, vote in (hire) and vote out (fire). As this touches technology and technologists - especially in the age of the Internet, well intentioned, but more naive young people have a disproportionate share of voice - one perhaps they are less well seasoned enough to exercise opposite prudent measures. In this age of ad driven MS competitors, the Internet and its technologies reflect that imbalance - and at a time when fewer and fewer people are willing to devote the time and energy it takes to fully understand things like new operating systems which depart so fundamentally from earlier versions. Vista's absolutely essential focus and center on security, which produced some driver coverage gaps and apps compat issues early on, coupled with restrictions on user accounts (UAC), were all within easy grasp for any person, or company to at least understand, plan for and manage, BUT they did contribute to the discomfort some users who were less well supported early in Vista's roll-out experienced. As regards wal-mart, big box disty of OEM Vista machines... please no one forget the impact of the DoJ resolution against MS... after the resolution, OEM's were free to establish a wad of third-party crap-ware relationships which badly damaged the end user experience. Prior to the resolution, MS could better control what was done to a machine. The OEM's really hosed themselves in this regard and only recently have some OEM's shipped clean small business centric systems - enterprises have always dealt with clean installs as they would never put up with the cruft OEM's foist on consumers. Finally, Microsoft has always depended upon business and the enterprise to subsidize the consumer PC market. W/o that subsidy, we'd all still be paying through the snout for computers - and don't think for a second that Apple has not benefitted from downward cost pressures on Intel based component parts as a result of the business/MS subsidy. Small builders and small business most directly were enabled by this as well. (looking in mirror here) |
| #8 By 28801 (71.58.231.46) at 6/25/2008 4:52:13 PM |
|
"As for the war in Iraq ... the Senate voted for it."
Stop already! That vote was the product of a disinformation campaign by Bush and his henchmen. Congress should be criticized for not seeing through the deception, but don't blame them for this war. It's all on Bush. |
| #9 By 143 (65.221.158.226) at 6/25/2008 6:58:30 PM |
|
The bottom line is Microsoft is dropping the ball, that's why these switcher ads are effective. This post was edited by donpacman on Wednesday, June 25, 2008 at 18:59. |
| #10 By 8556 (12.210.39.82) at 6/25/2008 7:22:00 PM |
| I agree with #9. MS needs to educate the public on Vista. Apple has led people to believe that OS X is a panacea. MS's lack of public rebuttle lends silent support to Apple's ads. The day when only cutting edge users, educated and aware of technology, bought a computer is long gone. Everyone, even Forest Gump, wants one now. MS needs to show why Vista has value to the general public. We Partners work with our customers, as is our job. The rest of the market needs to be educated by MS on National TV and in an entertaining manner, not with "the Wow is now" crap. |
| #11 By 23275 (68.186.182.236) at 6/25/2008 9:57:30 PM |
|
#8, Actually, it does not work that way at all and as candidly as I may offer, the community has very specific chartered guidelines driven by public law, which stipulate what they can report and to whom. The US Senate Select Committee on Foreign Intelligence, for example, has the responsibility for governance over all agencies reporting to all branches of the government and no source operates independent of its authority. All representatives and senators are afforded access to the material presented to the committee and there are very long standing and equally solid partnerships with dozens of foreign governments with similar structures <where> information is shared openly and cooperatively. Key allies are informed daily, hourly and as urgent matters arise, instantly.
No President would dare pursue the use of military force if there were not a clear consensus regarding all available intelligence. We could all go on about this in great detail and our system favors very intense scrutiny at all levels. I assess (benefitting from hindsight) that there were upward filters in Iraq where officials were falsely reporting a greater capability than they had to the central government, because they were afraid to report accurately, and I assess it was perceived by the central government as beneficial to them to project outwardly that they had more advanced programs and capabilities than they did (not that the projection resulted in any action favorable to them). Finally, the war was delayed significantly and in the intervening months, it is probable that components of WMD programs were evacuated to both Iran and Syria (where Syria is an Iranian proxy in many important contexts). Against the backdrop of the larger issues in the middle east, growing hostility between Iran and the west, extreme Islamic theocracies, global dependence on oil, the imperative to keep sea lanes open between all nations (regardless of political ideology), countless unmet UN Resolutions and the attacks of 9/11, it is much easier to understand how the desire to change the regime in Iraq and advance the ideals of democracy throughout the region would result in the use of military force - I mean... quite obviously, decades of applied alternative efforts had failed and resulted in war after war. Only when a direct attack on US soil and against civilians was executed, did the US commit to a larger war and one that certainly views all combatant nations in their proper and larger context – hostile to the interests of the US and her allies (Or not). Cont... This post was edited by lketchum on Wednesday, June 25, 2008 at 22:03. |
| #12 By 23275 (68.186.182.236) at 6/25/2008 10:01:36 PM |
|
In as short a space as possible, I'm trying to illustrate that one cannot look at Iraq in isolation (talk about a very effective Apple like campaign... the left and the media have succeeded in doing just that - isolating Iraq in the minds of people around the world). I say this not owing to any political bent, but to clearly communicate that no President and no Congress and certainly no agency views any country in isolation - not in terms of forming partnerships, or assessing them in the context of a threat. The world is very connected and very interdependent. Before we exit Iraq and end the war on terror, we have to reflect on what came before it? Did previous, less martial actions result in peace? The answer is no. Extremist theocrats with no respect for individual liberty and no regard for human life started this most recent war. How it ends is our only choice and if you think not fighting it will work, you need to take a stroll across Europe and witness for yourself the results of the Islamic Invasion of Central Europe...humankind's longest war... 647 years. Nearly countless fortifications still stand in concentric rings where the center finally held. Coexistence and peace are not acceptable to this enemy of life and liberty – they accept two conditions only: your conversion to Islam, or your death. Where they judge you incapable of conversion they will simply kill you by removing your head from your body. Before you brand me in any way – understand that I have never exercised my right to vote. I exercised my oath, that while I served, I would remain without voice, which by the way is where we get our word for Infantry (he without voice). That is how seriously we took our service to ideals… you know… just words. Our goals were actually much simpler – to stay alive and live free. They remain the same today.
The bottom line, #8, The SSCI reports Intelligence to the President, not the other way around and policy recommendations derive from its work - not the President's - he sets the strategic direction and makes decisions. He does not carry the responsibility for producing and reporting Intelligence and no one in the Executive branch does either - it is not their job, and you can bet any amount you wish, that if there were a shred of evidence to suggest otherwise, that the Congress would have indicted this President years ago and he'd have been tried in the Senate. |
| #13 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 6/26/2008 8:45:26 AM |
| Two Words: George Tenant |
| #14 By 23275 (68.186.182.236) at 6/26/2008 10:05:23 AM |
|
George Tenant was appointed under the Clinton Administration and retained, because he was so effective - and quite possibly one of the best directors the CIA ever had (despite the failings of the community pre and post 9/11). Also, prior to the realignment of the Intelligence Architecture, the Dir CIA was dual-hated as the DCI, or Director of Central Intelligence. The DCI works for the Senate Select Committee - who approves funding for operations and presents them to the President - not the other way around.
After the failures of intelligence a new cabinet post was created, which elevated the role of a national director on par with other senior cabinet officers. The reality is that the senate and the SSCI wanted to shift more responsibility into the White House and away from its own chambers. The commissions seated for the 9/11 review and the reviews leading up to the creation of a new cabinet post were chaired by and others filled by members of the SSCI. George Tenant was hardly a henchman - he was a public servant who was appointed by President Clinton, carried the endorsement of the Senate's committee on foreign intelligence and was confirmed by the Senate. At the recommendation of the SSCI and the out-going President, he was retained by the Bush Administration until the Senate demanded his head after the estimates and reporting following the invasion into Iraq proved to be inaccurate. |
| #15 By 92283 (142.32.208.233) at 6/26/2008 4:14:47 PM |
|
#8 The Rockefeller Commission (left wing Democrats) exonerated Bush. The "Bush Lied" meme is just Geroge Soros funded lies.
"But dive into Rockefeller's report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find. On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates." On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information." On chemical weapons, then? "substantiated by intelligence information." On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." " http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801687.html?hpid=opinionsbox1 |
| #16 By 23275 (68.186.182.236) at 6/27/2008 1:28:24 AM |
|
#15 From the same article: The Rockefeller Commission [the man, who not only sits on, but chairs the SSCI, rxall]
After all, it was not Bush, but Rockefeller, who said in October 2002: "There has been some debate over how 'imminent' a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . . To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can." Senator Rockefeller, the chair of the SSCI, the senior authority over the US Intelligence Architecture and the holder of the purse strings funding the entire community, he by his own words and his own vote and recommendation to the President, opted for the invasion of Iraq. Is he one of Bush's henchmen people speak of? It is simpler... officers lied to Saddam to stay alive. Saddam lied to his neighbors and the rest of the world out of pride and fear... true and real programs, though they may not have been as evolved as Saddam and his officers themselves held out, did exist and they did produce the means to develop and deploy WMD. It is highly probable that most components that were viable and part of Iraq's pre-war WMD program, were sold off and sent to Iran and Syria. I am convinced that if the war were not delayed more than six months, Saddam would not have been able to evacuate those components and completed weapons. So who lied to whom? I maintain that "power at any price" liberal democrats have lied to themselves and the people and having done so, they have delayed victory, aided our enemies and caused the deaths of thousands of young Americans and those of our allies. |
| #17 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 6/27/2008 6:37:54 AM |
|
"they have delayed victory"
Do ya think maybe the lack of a PLAN had something to do with that? Bush and his administration's lack of forethought has cost this nation many good men. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 225 Last | Next |
The time now is
1:59:10 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
