On Sep 15, 10:10 am, "Professor Dungby" <someb...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> "Rex Ballard" <rex.ball...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >>http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/92724/index.html
>
> > The main thing to remember is that Microsoft has moved their "best and
> > brightest" into supporting Vista and Vista WGA updates.
>
> > The XP updates and supports, as well as "security updates" are now
> > being handled by those who "couldn't quite make the cut" for the
> > Vista team. Furthermore, they get a much smaller budget, which means
> > that they are putting out patches that haven't been as thoroughly
> > tested.
>
> I'm sure that you have proof for this... right? Some sort of URL, newspaper
> article or anything at all that validates your latest BULLSHIT claims.
The proof is coming out in the form of more bug reports, recent
publication of reinstallation kits, and a number of new claims of
virus problems. It's not that I am stating that Microsoft is
deliberately sabotaging their own product. They are just putting
their best resources on Vista.
It makes sense if you think about it. For Microsoft, getting their
best people supporting Vista makes sense for them. They want to find
the defects as they are being reported, and get them fixed as quickly
as possible. Every new major version of any new system, including
Linux, tends to have some bugs that need to be worked out.
If Steve Ballmer didn't put his best and brightest support people into
the Vista support team, he would not be doing his job as the CEO of a
$60 billion/year company who is trying to maintain revenue streams
with the introduction of a new product.
I may not agree with the ethics of some of the issues raised in the
court cases against Microsoft, but I do consider Bill and Steve to be
brilliant business people who have a profound understanding for long-
term strategy. It is reasonable to assume that Microsoft would put
their best people on the new, strategic, product.
The problem is that when you cut away the best and brightest in the
team, what's left supporting the "Legacy" product? You tend to have
people who aren't as motivated, aren't as effective, and aren't as
thorough as the "A-Team", which is why they are not on the A-Team.
Even a minimal difference could mean the difference between a bug fix
or security fix that goes out "half baked" or "armor plated and battle-
ready tested".
> What a load of crap. Jesus Christ... I was a young man when I started
> reading your 300 page diatribe. Here's some free advice for you - cut out
> the bullshit and lies and your posts will be 95% shorter. Each post would
> actually take less than a few hours to read.
I admit I get off on tangents, and I admit that I don't always check
all of my facts each time I post them. I am often posting from
memory, at wierd hours, or on a very tight schedule (15 minutes to
write a posting). Sometimes, I'm even destracted and a posting might
involve 2-3 breaks over several hours.
I do like to stir up some contriversy, just to keep COLA interesting.
If all it was was Roy's reposts, it would still be a valuable group,
but much less interesting. :-D
Once in a while, I will go back and check the facts, just to see how
far off I am.
|
|
