Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 24th Aug 2007 22:16 UTC, submitted by Flatline
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y It was a long time in coming, but Microsoft has finally acknowledged that its anti-Linux site had gone past the point of usefulness. On August 23, Microsoft pulled plug on the 'Get the Facts' site, replacing it with a new Windows Server 'Compare' site. "The goal of the site is to offer more in-depth information and customer-to-customer opinions about many of the issues IT administrators face," a company spokeswoman said. "It turns out people wanted 3rd party validation in addition to people's experiences making OS purchasing decisions so in addition to customer case studies, research reports that compare platforms the site will also offer guidance around best practices, web casts, etc."
Thread beginning with comment 265636
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
by ideasman42 on Fri 24th Aug 2007 23:58 UTC
Member since:

Do people really take this stuff seriously? I mean real people, not technology zealots that read OSNews.

As if you trust what a company has to say about its competition?

Just like to point to the image on the right hand side..

Shows a newspaper titled "The Highly Reliable Times" - Is that a joke or what? - it seems fairly lame - .... like "We THINK we are news but we are not, because no paper would publish it, so lets pretend they did and impress you with it"

Also, Is it just me or does the dude at the top of the screen look condescending.

Reply Score: 11

RE: Lame
by shykid on Sat 25th Aug 2007 17:41 in reply to "Lame"
shykid Member since:

I agree completely.

Any company that makes claims based on self-funded studies will always make me think the exact opposite of those studies' results. For one thing, if those claims were true in a more objective, real-word setting, they could most likely be easily independently backed up. And anybody in marketing ought to know that independent claims carry much more water than any self-funded studies or self-published benchmarks. I mean, it sure looks better to say "X showed that our products are superior", rather than "We showed our products were superior". That's common sense.

This isn't just bashing MS. Apple is perhaps a bigger offender--hell, in my mind, they are master of the art of biasing facts: every new Mac is claimed to be exponentially faster than the last. At certain things on certain benchmarks, perhaps, but that doesn't mean everything is twice as fast, as Apple tries to lead you to believe. Linux (not a specific distro) doesn't really have spin doctors or marketing department, but their fanboys do a fine job of making up for it (and so do companies that develop and deploy Linux-based solutions).

Then there's that dog food commercial, "In a Purina-funded study, dogs fed Purina Dog Cow over the course of a lifetime lived an average of two years longer."

...o rly? I would have never guessed you'd come to that conclusion, especially not since your dog food is outrageously overpriced.

In the worlds of marketing and evangelism, everyone's a sinner. If we tried to avoid those who made outrageous claims about their products and competition, we'd have next to nothing to use on our computers (or feed our dogs). We'd only be using the competition's inaccurate claims and FUD to back up our biases, ignoring the claims and FUD made by our own kind. I know this from experience.

Oh, and "The Highly Reliable Times"? LOL, WTF. SO CHEESY. SOMEONE MAKE IT DIE, PLEASE.

Edited 2007-08-25 17:42

Reply Parent Score: 4