The Washington Post should be ashamed of itself for running a puff piece to promote Windows 8. I was mortified when I saw the headline, "Windows 8 is 84 percent less frustrating than Windows 7, report says."
Really? A brand new OS just now getting into play is less frustrating than Windows 7 by 84 percent? How can this number possibly be calculated in so short a time?
This dubious information comes from publicity-seeking company Soluto, which makes what appears to be a utility that mimics the ubiquitous hardware analysis tools. (It's unclear, however, where the "84 percent less frustrating" comes from.) You download the code and it tells you what sort of processor you have, details about your memory, and other facts you can get from the Windows system itself. One of its angel investors is a long-time Microsoft executive.
The Saluto tool will show you how often the machine has crashed in the last two weeks. It also appears that whatever it discovers, it sends back to its headquarters, where it is used to create marketing reports. (Yes, I'll remove it immediately.) Somehow, from looking at the workings of the machine, it got this "84 percent less frustrating" figure. I should mention that the article is originally from VentureBeat, an online magazine that I generally enjoy.
There are too many questionable assertions in this article, leaving me to wonder if an editor ever even read it. For example, an excerpt reads:
In addition, with the touch-friendliness of Microsoft's new operating system, Windows 8 is penetrating the tablet market much more effectively than Windows 7. For example, while less than two percent of Windows 7 machines are tablets, almost five percent of Windows 8 machines are, in fact, tablet computers — before Surface has really had a chance to make an impact yet.
To begin, I never saw any sort of serious initiative to make Windows 7 into a modern touch-screen platform, so this is a ludicrous comparison. The entire article is filled with this sort of specious commentary.
It goes on to trash Windows 7 for crashing more than Windows 8. Let's get something clear about Windows that people seem to forget: Windows, in general, deteriorates with the installation of more and more programs over time. It's known that when Windows is first installed, it is a dream come true. Windows 7 has been in the field for over three years. There is no way that it will be as stable as Windows 8, which just came out. If you compared established Windows 7 machines working for the last few years and a brand new install of Windows 7, I am sure the new install would crash less often, too. But of course, this is never once mentioned.
I'm not sure what the author is trying to pull with this curious article, but he is doing the public a huge disservice. This is like using as a "report" the Chris Pirillo video on YouTube, in which his dad tries a Windows 8 system for the first time. After watching this gem, it is pretty hard to accept the "84 percent less frustrating" notion.
Can we at least wait a few months before the crap begins to fly? Yes, we are all in the same boat and will have to use Windows 8 eventually. Why trick people into jumping on the boat when it hasn't been checked for leaks? Serve the public with honest analysis, not this sort of advertorial.
Walang komento:
Mag-post ng isang Komento