From the it's all in your head department.
The Guardian reports Steve Poole's analysis of M$ Vista defense list. Under wilting criticism, M$ took it down down their list of how you misunderstand Vista. Now it's returned as a version that admits no flaws. Read on and laugh all over again.
where the previous one said "Windows Search does require that the processor continually index file locations so they can be quickly retrieved at will." it now says "Search does require that the system index file locations so they can be quickly retrieved at will, though the approach taken by Windows Vista should not interfere with system performance while in use."
As Poole points out, that "should not" is genius. Well, it shouldn't interfere. Yeah, but it does. But, Microsoft says, it shouldn't. Both right. Move on.
It goes on and on.
M$ seems to have hounded both Poole and The Guardian about the analysis. Poole is called a childish bigot by Brandon Paddock. He and Charles Arthur laugh off both sets of feedback:
Over here, we're wondering how a technically inaccurate version of a document could be published on a part of the site that calls itself "Springboard series" which is "The On-ramp for IT pros". Someone's bound to explain it. (Note: I've corrected the more obvious errors in this post. I guess that makes me and Microsoft level, except it has slightly more money.)
You would think that M$ would have given Arthur feedback before publication. Most journalists try to interview all of the principles in their stories.