Hi John:
This is just alarmist. Actually, the Computer World article is a terrible
beat-up, one of the worst pieces of rabble-rousing journalism I have seen
for a while.
I would suggest that you might want to be very careful not to diminish your
own reputation by quoting Computer World again.
They have found someone with an impressive title, but who has no clue about
the technical issues involved, and is being very economical with the truth
in order to push their particular agenda. What the hell is an "Evangelist"?
Last I heard, that was a kind of religious preacher who was paid to get
people to believe stuff that cannot be proven correct.
In this case, the man they are misquoting is a Windows Vista marketing droid
working for Microsoft, whose main purpose in life is to sow fear,
uncertainty and doubt about products that compete with Microsoft products.
His purpose is to scare corporate customers into purchasing new versions
that they do not need of Microsoft Products, and to scare them away from
alternative products. He may be from Head Office, but trust me, he is NOT
"here to help us"
They have quoted this ignoramus extensively, rather than doing their own
research. Computer World is obviously suffering a down-turn in circulation.
I wonder if that could be because the rest of the world has discovered they
have one or two problems with accuracy and comprehension in the stuff
they're writing about?
Of course, it may be that Microsoft PAID Computer World to publish this
rubbish. Naaah, they wouldn't do that, would they? You bet your bippy they
would... Microsoft is getting utterly desperate over Vista's "failure to
launch" and they will try anything at this stage...
They obviously needed to inflame the hell out ("beat-up" in industry jargon)
the story in order to attract attention to Computer World. Had they spent
five minutes carrying out a simple test, they would have discovered that
what their article says is not true. Chances are, they DID conduct this
test, but they have avoided correcting the article because that might hurt
their advertising sales.
The TRUTH is: Word 4 and 5 for Macintosh are the only file versions
affected, and they can easily and safely be re-enabled by the Windows user
if they need them.
If Computer World or anyone else is saying something different, we need to
ask WHY they would be saying something that the simple source checks they
should have learned in Journalism 101 would so easily discover is wrong
John, I know that you mean well, and I am very sorry that these dishonest
low-lifes have caused you so much embarrassment. I bet you are too.
Cheers
