Here's two real-life examples of the kind of kid-glove treatment that Microsoft gets in the press. I used to subscribe to the Denver Rocky Mountain News (R.I.P.), once one of Denver, Colorado's two major papers.
I can't understand how something originally scheduled for 1997, then rescheduled for early 1998, and rescheduled yet again for mid 1998 can possibly be termed as "on schedule" or "on track". All I can figure is that Business Editor ran an M$ press release as a news items, despite having run two previous items that directly contradict the press release.
The next example doesn't seem quite so clear cut, since some of the citations come from different sources.
NT 5.0 renamed "Windows 2000", due out "early 1999".
Windows NT 5.0 has had several target dates in the past-ranging from final shipment in early 1998 to the Beta 2 release in the first half of the year to final shipment by year's end. Hardware vendors, software makers and customers now expect the operating system to ship in mid- to late 1999.
NT 5.0 "already slipped to early 1999"
Granted Microsoft actually delayed "the last test version" of Windows 2000 to the end of April, but a senior analyst at "Giga Information Group" states "It's likely that we're really talking about a (final) release midyear 2000 rather than anything approaching the end of 1999."
The byline credits Laura Raun of Bloomberg News for this article.
This article, also bylined Bloomberg News, contains a statement from Microsoft Corp. that the introduction of Windows 2000 is on schedule. The third and final test version of Windows 2000 was released on April 29, almost at the end of the period for its release given by the January 19 Bloomberg News article.
Here, only the headlines of the newspaper articles really disagree. You actually have to do some research (about 5 minutes worth) to find web-retrievable documentation that absolutely refutes Microsoft's orwellian revision of NT 5.0/Windows 2000 release schedule.
This time, I have to say that the Business Editor didn't slip up. The Bloomberg News wire service slipped up by not checking what it had previously run on the topic, and by not checking rather easy to find citations on the topic.
$Id: ms.treatment.html,v 1.3 1999/06/07 04:49:12 bediger Exp bediger $