[sorcix]

Or just read the original article at https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20121218-00/?p=58...

[jowsie]

This video isn't a rehashing of that article, it's the "real" story behind why it was removed. Read the video description at least if you're not willing to sit through the 30 minute video.

[phendrenad2]

I have long suspected that Raymond Chen doesn't really exist, and the blog is an inside joke among Microsofters to see who can revise history the most.

[drewcoo]

Maybe people who identify as "Microsofters" are part of a Stanislaw Lem-like literary conspiracy[1] named RaymondC.

I will see that and raise you a "Microsofters don't exist."[2]

[1] https://culture.pl/en/article/philip-k-dick-stanislaw-lem-is...

[2] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Microsoftie

[sidlls]

This isn't a piece of film art, it's informational. The audience shouldn't have to sit through a 30 minute video to get 5 minutes worth of content.

[optimiz3]

The video details a very thorough investigation and explores various ways Chen's blog post could have been truthy.

There's value in seeing the process that goes into debunking the official "party" line.

[adenozine]

The incentives to create this sort of content are imo the most toxic aspect of YouTube.

[jowsie]

It's entertainment, which is arguably film art, it just happens to also be a source of information. If you don't want to watch it, no one is forcing you to do so.

As I said, most of the information is right there in the video description.

[bombcar]

The missing piece is that he got it to run on Vista x64, but it is low resolution and looks out of place, which he suspects is why it got axed.