4 ms·

Why should someone not consider the reply from a lenovo rep as legitimate (although absurd)? There was a problem and lenovo said that the problem was because of

Why should someone not consider the reply from a lenovo rep as legitimate (although absurd)? There was a problem and lenovo said that the problem was because of the signature edition windows. Your comment about requiring more evidence is valid but rebuttal requires some time, and here we have it. I doubt lenovo would have cared about it had it not hit media. Note that the problem is still not solved. You cannot install linux on that machine.

MBCook 10y ago
What the Lenovo rep said wasn't accurate, and I'm not that surprised. So I wouldn't really trust them either. The actual reason, some technical firmware/driver minutiae, is exactly the kind of reason that both makes sense and I would not expect a PR rep to know or be able to explain. That may even be what happened here. They were told "It's happening because we're using Windows X and this makes it runs better". That becomes "It was because that's what Windows needs" or "That's what Microsoft has us do". The first one is accurate but misleading, the second inaccurate. But I could see either one resulting from that conversation. Now if the Lenovo rep could cite the rule that MS (supposedly) gave that says "Do things way X" then I would believe them. But "because Windows" alone isn't very compelling.
raesene9 10y ago
A low level rep. from a company is very unlikely to be party to something considered "secret" at a corporate level. So given that it wasn't a stated policy, that side of the story just didn't seem likely. Indeed you can't install linux on that machine, but that's a technical problem and a deficiency in Lenovo's setup, just not a conspiracy by Microsoft.
- johnward 10y ago
  and those low level employees at Wells Fargo committed fraud on their own without any direction from management.
  - kbody 10y ago
    A circle is a shape. A square is a shape. Thus a circle is a square. This is the logic you applied.
  - raesene9 10y ago
    that's a non-sequiteur, in the case of wells fargo the fact of the secret conspiracies absolutely leaked, just like I'm suggesting it would if Lenovo and MS had some pact.

MBCook 10y ago

What the Lenovo rep said wasn't accurate, and I'm not that surprised. So I wouldn't really trust them either. The actual reason, some technical firmware/driver minutiae, is exactly the kind of reason that both makes sense and I would not expect a PR rep to know or be able to explain. That may even be what happened here. They were told "It's happening because we're using Windows X and this makes it runs better". That becomes "It was because that's what Windows needs" or "That's what Microsoft has us do". The first one is accurate but misleading, the second inaccurate. But I could see either one resulting from that conversation. Now if the Lenovo rep could cite the rule that MS (supposedly) gave that says "Do things way X" then I would believe them. But "because Windows" alone isn't very compelling.

raesene9 10y ago

A low level rep. from a company is very unlikely to be party to something considered "secret" at a corporate level. So given that it wasn't a stated policy, that side of the story just didn't seem likely. Indeed you can't install linux on that machine, but that's a technical problem and a deficiency in Lenovo's setup, just not a conspiracy by Microsoft.

johnward 10y ago
and those low level employees at Wells Fargo committed fraud on their own without any direction from management.
- kbody 10y ago
  A circle is a shape. A square is a shape. Thus a circle is a square. This is the logic you applied.
- raesene9 10y ago
  that's a non-sequiteur, in the case of wells fargo the fact of the secret conspiracies absolutely leaked, just like I'm suggesting it would if Lenovo and MS had some pact.