Talk:Mojave Experiment/Archives/2012

Bias

The article seems a little unbalanced, with about 80% being criticism of the experiment. The intro doesn't even mention the reactions depicted in the experiment before it begins to discredit it. 64.30.84.69 (talk) 23:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• I think this is likely because the 'experiment' wasn't really a experiment; it was a product sales pitch by a product salesman. Maybe the article could include some info about what happens differently, maybe the intro should mention the summary results that the MS guys quote... but then again that's all on the MS website, which is referenced Jonduhig (talk) 01:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiment Wikipedia editor needs to start reading Wikipedia... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.240.56 (talk) 07:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

This article seemed very biased. Take the first line of the criticisms section: "The study has been criticized as cherry-picking positive reactions and not addressing many of Vista's problems." What makes this a study? If I was creating an advertisement I would want the responses to be positive. Just like the old cola taste test commercials never show people picking the competitor. Why is this criticized for being an ad, it IS an ad. 24.8.147.178 (talk) 21:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It is an ad, but it poses as a scientific study. As many people do not make the distinction between this and a real study, it must be documented as both, including the criticism for posterity. People do the same thing with the Pepsi/Coke "adsperiments". IncidentalPoint (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Not clear what the users did. Did they only see just the demo or did they have one on one demo in front of a computer? Felix9x (talk)

• the Windows Vista Team Blog says they were given a demo by a salesman, have added this to the article (see reference) Jonduhig (talk) 01:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I changed the word "study" to "experiment" and I removed a lot of the suggestive language which had a clear bias. Feel free to make any improvements so that neutrality can be restored. Darkhack (talk) 22:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the second section is still very bias as it does not mention the fact that the majority of Windows users will never see the setup screen as these days it pretty much comes preinstalled and the computer package deals that bundle PCs with printers guarantee the hardware and software are compatible. True, technical users have found plenty of problems but for most people - it just works, and I doubt whether the test subjects were very computer literate otherwise they would have called the bluff very easily. The Leithal Weapon 203.97.172.190 (talk) 03:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This is the problem with wiki. So much personal bias. I agree with a lot of the comments here. This article, still, in my opinion appears very bias, you can tell just by the tone of the article. It does not talk about the context of the advertising campaign at all. Which is what it is. This isn't being published in a scientific journal! lol. The Mojave experiment is a marketing initiative by Microsoft, it's main purpose being to combat Apple's aggressive marketing campaign against Windows Vista and all computers in competition to the Apple brand. While many bloggers attack the campaign for not providing an accurate scientific experiment, they are in some respects missing the point. If you are to compare Apple's famous Mac ads to the Mojave experiment, it is clear that while the Mojave experiment was tailored with Microsoft's interests, it nonetheless still has an element of authenticity that the Apple ads do not even contain nor attempt to have. Instead, their angle is more traditional in advertising and depends on that language to sell its brand. For example, to illustrate the contrast in truth between the two campaigns: one Apple ad suggests (through an interview with an actor) that the Apple operating system never crashes. Any computer scientist will tell you that that just isn't possible. Did Apple show you scientific statistics on this fact? Does advertising ever attempt to have such honesty? In conclusion I would rewrite the entire intro to be way more objective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirallanmon (talk • contribs) 08:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and deleted the reception section as it was completely bogus and clearly written by one person who just linked to the Mojave site. When you state, "Criticisms have been made" - you need to cite who said that otherwise its just your opinion based on the official site and that is not an objective wiki page its a discussion post. That's like saying, "some experts agree...." lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirallanmon (talk • contribs) 08:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Please stop removing the Reception section. It is a place for both positive and negative views (so long as they are properly cited). Feel free to add a paragraph of (properly cited) positive information if you have any, but so long as you simply remove the section your edits will be reverted. IncidentalPoint (talk) 19:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I also just read this article and was amazed at the amount of negative bias in the article, if someone has the time I think it needs a good edit and balance of the arguments. My negative point is the "Panoramic feature" advert shown on TV is not even in Vista! You need Windows Live Photo Gallery which as far as I know.. also works on XP. The other arguments about cost of licenses, which is part of the article, are pointless as most consumers buy a PC with it already bundled and the devices all installed and ready to use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.5.41.132 (talk) 23:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

That middle paragraph

It's my first instinct to remove the middle paragraph from the Criticism section, but looking at the history that would just get me into a revert war.

I understand that the users were not technically minded, and this is part of the point. The negative opinion of Windows Vista is very pervasive among people who not only don't know a great deal about computers, but neither need nor want to know. These people make up the majority of... well, everyone, to put it bluntly. The whole point of Mojave was to try and sway these people by just demonstrating the software in use. They simply allowed Vista and the facts to speak for themselves. Indeed, just now I reminded myself that this is a policy of Wikipedia as well. What I'm trying to say is, the technical ability of the users doesn't invalidate the findings.

Yes, I realise that some aspects of Mojave deserve criticism, such as how software/hardware compatibility wasn't tested. But we can include these facts, with a citation to back them up, without resorting to what appears to be original research. -Skorpus McGee (talk) 14:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Not original research, there are citations. The reason the criticism section is so big is because that is half of what makes the ad campaign notable (i.e. it is showing that if someone would only give Vista a try, they'd see it's not so bad. -- yet they didn't get the full experience so the ad's more of a scam. And that's what everyone talks about.) The section is not oversize, it just gives the scoop, gives the source, and ends. Althepal (talk) 05:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it appears the work was done for me. I'm happy with that section as it stands right now, it's a far cry from what it was. -Skorpus McGee (talk) 10:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section removal

I'm just wondering about the removal of the criticism section. It seems that it has been repeatedly removed from the article by anonymous non-Wikipedia members without giving any reason or mention on this talk page to even attempt consensus. I'm just wondering if these are Microsoft employees or something. I hate to keep on reverting them, and I'd much rather discuss it to come to a happy medium, but I seem to have no choice but to restore the section at least until some reason is given or some discussion has been attempted. Althepal (talk) 05:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not a Microsoft employee but I think it should be cleaned up to not be so negative. It *is* what it *is*... a marketing campaign. I don't see many other marketing campaigns on wikipedia with "criticisms" except perhaps very controversial ones. The criticism section just looks like a bit of fanboi Microsoft bashing... I'm surprised there's no M$ in there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.75.40.118 (talk) 09:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Adding perhaps, a postive reception section would balance things out.--Ryudo (talk) 09:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Has there been any positive reception? I've been looking for some to put in this section, but have been unable to find any so far. Maybe we could include an increase in sales (if there ends up being one)? IncidentalPoint (talk) 20:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't supposed to be balanced in the sense that everybody should be happy. It's supposed to be honest, neutral, and sometimes blunt. If anyone can find any positive aspects about this campaign, so be it (sales increase -- if any -- would be pretty good). However, until then, there should be no removal of cited sourses. If this continues, I propose a lock. --98.112.158.127 (talk) 05:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

- im a noobie to wiki but this is just hilarious. I can't believe that cited sources mixed with heavily biased opinion is fact in wiki world. This is more like a soap opera than a credible source. Though I do love wiki for topics that are of less contention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirallanmon (talk • contribs) 08:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Point of the Experiment

While the experiment was designed to give people the illusion that they were looking at a brand new operating system, it would clearly not work if the person had already used Vista (they would immediately recognize the software for what it was, just like a XP user would recognize XP, for example). However, the article says this: "Another area of concern is that part of the experiment was for Microsoft to specifically choose people who have never seen Vista before, indicating that the subjects chosen did not have a firm base for making decisions." I don't understand how they can choose someone who has seen Vista and still have them partake in the experiment. Perhaps remove this sentence, or clarify it to say what was really meant by it? 98.221.236.202 (talk) 08:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The whole section there is rather weasel-wordy, with lots of "There have been concerns..." and such. Who has these concerns? -MarkKB (talk) 04:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to add a note here - we don't know that anyone who has used Vista would have recognized "Mojave" as Vista since the viewer never sees the desktop that the unsuspecting consumer sees. MS easily could have added themes, changed visual styles or amped up the OS to look its best and, in some regards, foreign compared to the normal look of Aero. My point being that, since WE can't see the screen, we shouldn't assume that these people were shown a straight up Vista/Aero default desktop. Hell, if you asked people to compare to OSes and one screen had Leopard and the other had Vista with notepad open reading: "Pick this one for a free Yacht!" and the people watching that commercial never get to see the screen, then there are some real issues. - User:Megsuma (talk) 13:58, 6 September 2008 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.171.16.245 (talk)

The website has four-or-five videos showing the demos the conductors of the *ahem* experiment performed. If they're to be believed, they did it on plain vanilla Vista with no mods or themes. -MarkKB (talk) 04:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact that I am forced to download and install a Microsoft® Silverlight™ (Beta 2) plug-in just to get on the experiment's website says it all for me. I don't feel like an 80% critical article is a huge wikipedia issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.45.184.64 (talk) 22:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually you can view the site without silverlight, just read the entire page, it has a link. Funny MS still refuses to use flash. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirallanmon (talk • contribs) 08:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Retitleing "Reception": The reception area should be retitled to Criticism, because that is all that is in there. Reception would be both good and bad for this, as there are actually quite a few people out there who like "Project Mojave", myself being one of them. I had just bought a laptop with Vista just prior to seeing a Mojave commercial. I have to say, I was considering putting XP on it, but it proved to me to be a solid OS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.65.63 (talk) 17:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Reception full of ridiculous

The "Reception" section is a collection of nonsequitor slams against the ads. What does license cost have to do with the experiement? Who said the demo was done by a "salesperson"? The entire paragraph is just a shoddy hit-piece.

As for those who expect the "reception" to be "criticism", it isnt suprising, as *every* topic relating to MSFT seems to end up with a badly crafted, "criticism" section built by a vocal minority of ridiculous zealots.

This "reception" section is wholly without merit -- its very inclusion only demonstrates Wikipedia's inability to stand-up to vocal, motivated minorities.

The paragraph should be removed **OR** some reaonsable context provided.

67.68.12.163 (talk) 21:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that it could be cleaned up a bit, but I like the general theme. Maybe salesman could be replaced with "Microsoft Employee". The licensing is important because part of Vista's perception is that it is costly, therefor if that is not discussed with Mojave then the comparison is flawed. 12.130.118.10 (talk) 21:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.130.118.10 (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Citation Needed for Licensing Cost Claim.

I have tagged a fact tag in the reception section about the Licensing Costs as none of the sources cited in that paragraph. From the above section this part has also been disputed on rather it should be in the article or not for that particular line. The way its written it kinda sounds like WP:OR. Stating the the Criticisms Don't mention that along with Hardware Upgrades. (which seems to be mention in the sources but there's no mention of the Licensing costs on any one of them) Sawblade05 ^{(talk to me | my wiki life)} 09:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Redundancy & Possible Irrelevancies?

I have edited this article in the past, but forgot to remove some redundancy. I removed the center paragraph and replaced it with the current paragraph "Test procedure". Seems people like it. It just doesn't seem right though. It feels like the middle paragraph I made is explaining to the reader as if the rest of the article didn't exist. Maybe it just needs more editing, or maybe I'm too picky. Also, why in the first paragraph does the article mention more content being added to the site, when the added content would not change the purpose or results of the Mojave Experiment? It's quite clear the new content will show more positive user reactions, and explain more product usability features and perspectives, all of which are also positive. This new information would not change the knowledge of the campaign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.161.146.83 (talk) 07:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Was Windows Mohave actually an Early Windows 7 version?

Enquiring minds want to know.  ;-) ---- Theaveng (talk) 19:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up

According to the NYT aritcle cited in the Wik Vista article, a Mcrisoft spokesperson said there would be follow-on experiments. When I went to the MS mojave web site, there was a simple statement that the experiment was finished. When I went to the other MS site related to Mojave (found in the Wik article footnote), there was no mention of a follow-on in thewritten text (I didn't try to start the video-clip). Kdammers (talk) 22:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)