But to say it’s a non-story diminishes the blogosphere. There’s a lot of geeks out there watching this kind of stuff with professional interest. Delay is one thing, significant code re-writing is something else altogether.

From an overall communications perspective, MSFT needs to roll out the persons directly responsible for Vista and let them make a statement. People can choose to believe what is said or dismiss. But at least MSFT will have done what people usually expect in a situation like this - had the horse’s mouth speak, not third parties. Is that so hard?

Blogs can be a highly credible source of information, as Robert said. But in a situation like this, with so many different opinions about Vista, some kind of code rewrite (or not), what it means, etc, I wouldn’t rely solely on blogs as my only outlet for clarity in a consistent Microsoft message.

I have no idea whether 60% of Vista requires rewriting or not. Robert says it doesn’t. He says he’s an official Microsoft spokesperson so, therefore, such a view must have some authority as representing an official Microsoft position rather than just that of a Microsoft employee. So all is ok, then.

I’m wondering why I haven’t yet seen this news in the FT or on the BBC News site, both of which published with alacrity the news about the Vista delay (and the Office delay). I’ve not seen any news there other than those, so maybe all this stuff about 60% is a complete non-story as far as the media is concerned, one only for the blogosphere and a tech magazine in Australia. Or maybe it’s because it’s the weekend and we’ll see the mainstream media reporting starting on Monday.

And what will we see on Monday, if anything? What will the story lead be? Robert’s and other Microsoft bloggers denying the code rewrite? Or the Australian magazine headline? That’s more likely if your point about sensationalism is correct (and I’d say you’re more likely to be right).

Microsoft is coming across as eitheir arrogant (our big guys aren’t going to respond to this Aussie twerp) or opaque by refusing to answer the allegations officially and directly and in detail.

Given the writer’s credentials and the specific nature of his reporting (much more detailed than anything I’ve seen in a Microsoft response), the onus is on Microsoft Corporation to make a public statement about the actual facts.

Until then, a large amount of the code needs to be rewritten. May be up to 60%.

That won’t happen. You don’t fight unprofessional jerks with the big guns. This guy didn’t quote both sides of the story. He didn’t try to get Microsoft’s point of view. He didn’t even quote anyone on the record. Well, now he says some marketing guy at Acer in Australia told him this. Acer in Australia? What do they know about software engineering? (Acer’s main software engineering is done in Japan).

Not a single person WITH credibility has come to his defense.

You guys here are why PR people get bad reputations. You’re willing to believe anything you read on the Internet and then act like babies “we won’t believe those lowly bloggers.”

This was done on a blog, it’ll end on a blog.

By the way, we have several vice presidents who write blogs. But I guess you don’t believe those, either, right?