More FUD for Windows Vista

Are you kidding me? ZDNet takes something that has been common knowledge for years and treats it as if it was news?

I'm speaking of the dog and pony show that Tom Espiner wrote about on November 13th with the eye catching headline Microsoft exec calls XP hack 'frightening'. Great headline, it got my attention.

The computer in question was running Windows XP with Service Pack 1 and was connected to an unsecured wireless network. Adding more vulnerabilities to the mix, "The machine was running no antivirus, firewall, or anti-spyware software..." according to Mr. Espiner.

I'd be afraid to be in the same room with such an obviously vulnerable machine. So, when in a demonstration, the machine got hacked, where is the news? Even to a blogger, what is there to have an opinion on? The outcome was as predictable as the sun rising in the morning.

The interesting question, is why invite the press to a demonstration of the obvious?

The term FUD has been mentioned in this blog before. It stands for Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt and refers to tactics used to sell a product that isn't good enough to sell itself.

This was FUD for Vista, designed to scare people away from Windows XP. People who don't know any better. Two people who do know better were the techies in England that were involved in the demo. Both chose to remain anonymous. I don't' blame them.

Mr. Espiner writes "Nick McGrath, head of platform strategy for Microsoft U.K., was surprised by the incident." He was? Really? I wonder if Microsoft knows how bad things like this make them look. Even Alex Rodriguez eventually wised up.

I've written previously that anyone buying a new Windows computer should opt for XP rather than Vista:

• Putting Windows Vista on trial
• When to convert from Windows XP to Vista, Part 2
• I pity the fool (Windows XP good, Vista bad)

A stunt like this says a lot about Vista.

[tenc21]

Straw man

Espiner's article is misrepresented. He quotes a UK Microsoft exec as saying having anti-spyware software installed is not as important as getting updates and patches. The exec notes how better off that system would be with SP2 and Vista which have more built-in defenses. In fact, Espiner specifically cites another expert (from an organization called SOCA) who noted applying SP2 (all of it) to XP on a secured wireless network was satisfactory. But no suggestion of going to Vista.

I fail to see where this article would motivate a user to abandon XP and make a mad dash for Vista. [and if as you say this is so obvious and old news anyway why would anybody care and abandon XP to buy Vista based on it?] What Espiner and the exec do say is get updates (like SP2 for XP) or get an updated OS like Vista with OS components less accessible to the average hacker. What I also see is a narrow minded blogger with blinders trying to squeeze a round news article into a square blog. You want Espiner to say XP is dangerous to use and therefore go buy Vista, but he never says that.

You just set up a straw man to fill up space in your one track blog. Previously, I said the trivialities discussed in your blog was hilarious; misrepresenting others is neither trivial nor humorous--it is pathetic.

[mhinnewyork]

Ignore tenc21 - person is a stalker

Don't pay any attention to the comments made by tecn21. He, she or they are stalking me, doing nothing but griping about anything and everything I say. Their purpose is not to debate anything just to argue. They comment on *every* blog posting of mine, regardless of the topic and are constantly mean spirited.
Michael Horowitz