Post #181,175
10/27/04 11:56:30 AM
|
The Great OS/2 vs NT InfoWorld Scandal.
Say, remember back when InfoWorld did their Reader's Choice awards, and after OS/2 won for the 4-5th time, they got all ticked off and discarded the results in favor of a method that, surprise surprise, resulted in an NT win? When was that? I'm thinking 1996-ish.
|
Post #181,191
10/27/04 12:52:59 PM
|
It is what bonded the group at the original IWE
A serious influx, me being one of them. Yes, 1996 was the right year. It is the same year REAL(OLD) SCO sent out a letter sayinbg to IGNORE this childs playtoy called Linux.
-- [link|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net|greg], [link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ iwetheyNo matter how much Microsoft supporters whine about how Linux and other operating systems have just as many bugs as their operating systems do, the bottom line is that the serious, gut-wrenching problems happen on Windows, not on Linux, not on Mac OS. -- [link|http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1622086,00.asp|source]Here is an example: [link|http://www.greymagic.com/security/advisories/gm001-ie/|Executing arbitrary commands without Active Scripting or ActiveX when using Windows]
|
Post #181,192
10/27/04 12:58:01 PM
|
Help Sandy! The OS/2 zealots are picking on her!
[link|http://www.infoworld.com/cgi-bin/displayNew.pl?/reed/sr033197.htm|Here] at Infoworld. Sandy Reed
March 31, 1997
Help us reclaim Readers' Choice Product of the Year awards from OS/2 zealots
The OS/2 Readers' Choice Product of the Year game is over and nobody won -- not the OS/2 boosters who stuffed the ballot box again, not the products that finished a distant second, and certainly not InfoWorld, whose good intentions came to naught. But with your help, our annual Readers' Choice awards will survive.
Long-time readers won't be surprised by the fact that OS/2 "won" the Readers' Choice polls that we conducted in January and February. Nor will you be surprised that it "won" by an overwhelming majority in the categories of Client, Server, and Overall Product of the Year. But you might be surprised by our decision to declare this year's results null and void.
We didn't make this decision casually, but the facts were undeniable. In all three categories, OS/2 received at least six times the number of votes of its nearest competitors, a definite indicator of ballot stuffing given the history of Readers' Choice voting.
The first two years that OS/2 won, we attributed it to the product's value as an enterprise computing solution.
When it won for 1995, my predecessor, Stewart Alsop, predicted that a four-peat wouldn't occur because OS/2 was being passed on the technology track. OS/2 advocates interpreted that as a challenge and made a concerted effort to prove him wrong. Thus, the ballot stuffing this year and our decision to invalidate the results.
We're willing to sacrifice this year's results, but we're not willing to sacrifice the concept of Readers' Choice awards.
That's why I'm appealing to InfoWorld readers to help us resurrect the contest. I'd like your suggestions on how to restructure the annual poll so it reflects reality.
How should we construct the next contest? Should we abandon the Web-based voting system we instituted this year? Should we hire an outside company to conduct a scientifically based survey? Should we return to printing ballots and distributing them with the newspaper? Should we disqualify all votes for OS/2 next year? Should we consider another format entirely for the contest? Send me your suggestions. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #181,232
10/27/04 3:16:14 PM
|
Ah yes, the memories.
I actually quit posting to their forums after that. IIRC, they never did supply any actual evidence of ballot stuffing other than that OS/2 just couldn't win again. I remember after they published their proposed solution (a survey) it turned out that all it would track was the installed base, which had basically nothing to do with preference.
|
Post #181,239
10/27/04 3:43:12 PM
|
Didn't she leave for a dot.com?
Probably has finally found her level of competence asking "You want frys with that?".
Sandy certainly did everything possible to destroy InfoWorld's credibility in the IT community, launching it on it's way to it's current newsletter size (66 pages this week).
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #181,246
10/27/04 3:55:55 PM
|
Aiyeee... only 66 pages. DAM.
I remember back when it finally was 66 pages in size, they changed from the really light newsprint paper to the "white stuff" that was semi-coated.
What is it like now?
-- [link|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net|greg], [link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ iwetheyNo matter how much Microsoft supporters whine about how Linux and other operating systems have just as many bugs as their operating systems do, the bottom line is that the serious, gut-wrenching problems happen on Windows, not on Linux, not on Mac OS. -- [link|http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1622086,00.asp|source]Here is an example: [link|http://www.greymagic.com/security/advisories/gm001-ie/|Executing arbitrary commands without Active Scripting or ActiveX when using Windows]
|
Post #181,354
10/28/04 12:19:22 AM
|
Re: Aiyeee... only 66 pages. DAM.
It's 7-3/4" x 10-3/4" magazine size, all glossy paper and thin enough to blow away in a light breeze.
eWeek (formerly PCWeek) was the first to go small format and it's 66 pages just like InfoWorld. Still in full tabloid size are ComputerWorld (46 pages), NetworkWorld (88 pages) and CRN (formerly Computer Reseller News) at 134 pages.
Of those that have always been in small format, InformationWeek is at 116 pages, Network Computing is at 116 pages and Network Magazine (larger at 8-1/2"x 11" is at 84 pages.
All in all, I'd say Sandy's play to dump the techies and pitch to the corporate boys and girls has been stonewalled by InformationWeek and the techies now go elsewhere.
In other news, Linux Journal is at 96 pages, Specturm (serves the Pick community (remember Pick)) is at 47 pages every two months and Internet Retailer, serving the dead dot.coms is at 72 pages but on much heavier paper than InfoWorld. Health Data Management is at 112 pages.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #181,526
10/28/04 4:12:28 PM
|
Re: Specturm is at 47 pages?
With a page intentionally left blank? :)
Alex
In politics, what begins in fear usually ends in folly. -- Samuel Taylor Coleridge, poet (1772-1834)
|
Post #181,360
10/28/04 12:48:09 AM
|
I can't find anything recent
Of course, it's nice that "Sandy Reed" is also a porn queen.
|
