Dvorak gets Windows 7 horribly wrong
John C. Dvorak has always been the P.T. Barnum of PC pundits, willing to write deliberately provocative things to draw attention to himself. But his most recent column in MarketWatch is an unfortunate example of how that tendency can go horribly wrong when it’s combined with factual errors.
Dvorak’s main thesis is pretty ho-hum stuff: Microsoft’s future rides on Windows 7. But then he drops this little bit of Barnum in there:
Microsoft may be pulling a fast one with the beta release because this is not the finished product. Let me explain.
As a beta program it probably does not have any of the security measures built into it the way a release product would. For one thing security is not too important with a beta product since hackers have not targeted it in any way, nor will they until the final product ships.
All that zippy performance that everyone is jacked up about will disappear once the burden of security precautions and patches begins.
For all we know the whole OS could turn into an incredible pig after this happens.
That is, to put it as kindly as possible, pure crap. The security features you see in the beta release of Windows 7 are those you will see in the final product. The idea that there’s a big pile of code being held back is ridiculous.
It’s really sad that some readers of this column (which is aimed at investors, not techies) will actually believe this nonsense. The question for me is, does Dvorak really believe this nonsense? In other words, is he cynical or senile?
Update: I just went back and read the column again. I was especially struck by how crude and juvenile the writing is. It’s similar to what I see in comment threads from anti-Microsoft zealots. I wonder if JCD is having this column ghost-written?
According to the latest performance test carried out by Adrian at ZDNET: http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=3857, I think the people worrying about a lot of code being held back should be surprised. As the builds are advancing, performance is actually getting better. I agree the current build – 7057 is not near RTM or RC1 for that matter, but surely you wouldnt think that MS is stripping out more and more code with each successive build just to make it go faster? I feel stupid for even counter suggesting such a thing. And mind you, when MS publicly claimed that current generation of netbooks would be able to run all editions of Windows 7, then they were aware of the PR mistakes committed at the time of Vista, and this time they really mean it when they say that minimum system requirements are a 1GHz Processor and 1 GB RAM.
“The idea that there’s a big pile of code being held back is ridiculous.”
then why not release the final product rather than having an open beta then?
I think this is simply you becoming scared of any criticisms directed at your ‘hand that feeds’ Mr Botts, it is obvious that you are simply advocating a new product that will obviously provide you revenue streams.
Ex, are you trying to sound like you don’t know what you’re talking about? The beta is about two things: (1) allowing people outside Microsoft to evaluate a new product and (2) allowing Microsoft to get feedback and identify bugs on that product. The second goal is IMPOSSIBLE to achieve until you have delivered all of the main portions of the code. The final bug testing is about fixing small problems, of which there may be thousands.
As for your comments about my revenue stream, you sure do make a lot of assumptions about what I do for a living. You’re wrong. Yes, I’m in the process of writing Windows 7 Inside Out. If you were a regular visitor here rather than a drive-by sniper you would know that. But I do much more than write books these days. Regular visitors here already know that.
“drive-by sniper”?
Snipers do not perform drive by shootings, the whole point of a sniper is a gunman that positions themselves in a static position and waits for the ability to have a 1 shot kill.
I was thinking more of this definition: “one who attacks a person or a person’s work with petulant or snide criticism, esp. anonymously or from a safe distance.”