I saw a character try to get into the embargoed hands-on Windows 7 sessions at PDC. This character was not invited, but yet he tried to get into the strictly invite-only event via what seemed to be tactics of deception with the staff and guards. The sessions were open to those who were a part of the Featured Communities program as well as some high-traffic journalists selected by the top brass of Microsoft.

Randall Kennedy would be his name, and from what I saw, he tried to deceive his way into the embargoed sessions. Thankfully, such a character was not allowed access to the pre-release Windows 7 seminar, and for good reason.

I’m dedicating today’s post to the damage caused by sensationalist posts. The most recent one by Randall Kennedy (I’ll quote it directly at the end; there’s no reason to give his articles more traffic than how much he has already gotten) couldn’t possibly contain more lies and misgivings than it already does. Let’s round up the points and talk about where he’s gone wrong:

• Randall refers to the Windows 7 early 2009 beta launch as a “delay of [significant] magnitude.”
  Right. A zero-time delay is a delay of significant magnitude? Microsoft has originally intended for Windows 7 to hit public beta in early 2009, just like I was personally told by a solid number of trustworthy people (both inebriated and sober) at PDC.
• “[The beta] was generally accepted to be slated for the mid-December 2008 timeframe”
  By who? A few bloggers heard from their own internal sources that that was Microsoft’s target, but since when did that supplant official timelines? Bloggers with significant connections are good for when companies don’t talk, but when companies release official information on things such as timelines, etc., it’s a good idea to trust the official statements.
• “It’ll give the company a chance to take another pass at the kernel code base and maybe, just maybe, reconsider dropping some of that consumer-focused baggage.”
  Microsoft focuses on “consumer-focused baggage” in a client operating system because the people who will be using the operating system are consumers, either in a business environment or a home environment. Regardless, the idea with a client OS is to appeal to the user using it, thus allowing the user to get more work done faster while having more fun during free time.
• “I especially like the part where he says that Windows 7 is ‘in the can. It’s done. There are no major changes coming.’”
  That’s right. No other major features will be added. In other words, there won’t see a brand new framework being added, nor a huge change to Explorer being made. However, with this in mind, significant usability changes can be made to anything in current Windows 7 builds. There’s still lots of work to be done. Otherwise, the OS would have been released in January instead of simply entering beta.
  It’s as if the term “beta” lost all meaning. I blame Google for this travesty.
• “As an FOM (Friend of Microsoft) in good standing, Paul should know.”
  There’s no such thing as a Friend of Microsoft. This is Randall’s way of painting characters as Elitist and Out of Touch… much like politicians. Paul stated his opinions on the user interface, but Paul has a right to do that. So does everyone who used the new user interface in Windows 7 (assuming it’s the newest iteration of it). This is what the UX teams want! That’s the whole idea behind getting feedback!
• “He gets special access to all sorts of supersecret Microsoft stuff — a reward for his normally glowing coverage of all things Redmond.”
  No, he gets access because he has ridiculous readership and unbiased coverage. He voices his opinions when he has concerns about something and he voices praise when he sees praiseworthy material. Many developers within Microsoft read the WinSuperSite and listen to Windows Weekly because Paul is able to provide middle-man insight into what people think should come to a Microsoft product and what people think should stay out. His own experiences also contribute to this.
• “Maybe they can just pre-install it on the FREE LAPTOP COMPUTER I requested.”
  It’s interesting. The laptops were loaned to reviewers for evaluation purposes (so that these bloggers and journalists could use and comment on every bit within Windows 7 during the beta). They weren’t given to journalists to influence positive reviews; they were given to influence accurate reviews of all features rather than partial reviews of Windows 7 as time goes on.
  However, if Microsoft did give Randall a laptop, Randall would likely have been swayed into doing positive reviews as opposed to what seems to be his typical hit-and-run slander.
  In other words, Microsoft did the right thing by not lending him a laptop. Otherwise, they might have unfairly influenced Randall’s commentary. Sick yet effective irony, all in all.

It can safely be assumed that there’s no other relevant content worth reading in the remainder of Randall’s post. This post, as well as others by him, are made for the point of drawing traffic to InfoWorld. Frankly, I feel terrible that any respectable publication has to rely on this kind of sensationalism to keep readership.

There’s a certain type of respect which a majority of bloggers strive for: respect from genuinely interested readers. It’s what we at AeroXperience aim for with both the forums and the blog, and it’s what Paul, Mary Jo, Rafael, Neowin, WinVistaClub, WinFuture, TheVista.ru, etc. all aim for. Our objective is to provide original content to those of you who are interested in Microsoft’s latest developments, and you should feel free to call us out whenever you see a problem in our coverage. Other outlets have different objectives, but all of us aim to disperse our content and attract readership truthfully and honorably.

Based on what I read in Randall’s post today and on what I saw from him at PDC, I don’t believe this to be the case for Randall.

Then again, desperation is to be expected in an economy where publishers are dropping employees like flies.

Read Randall’s opinion post after the jump.

Read More »