Walt Mossberg: Windows 7 vs. Mac OS X is a toss-up

At many Apple keynotes, Steve Jobs triumphantly pulls up quotes from Wall Street Journal technology columnist Walt Mossberg, who often extols the virtues of Apple products and slams Microsoft software, most recently Vista.

Well, Jobs should probably start looking for another reviewer from which to get admiring quotations. Mossberg has written a surprisingly positive review of Windows 7, and he’s gone as far as to claim Apple has largely lost its software edge. The reviewer sums up his opinion in the following two paragraphs:

In recent years, I, like many other reviewers, have argued that Apple’s Mac OS X operating system is much better than Windows. That’s no longer true. I still give the Mac OS a slight edge because it has a much easier and cheaper upgrade path; more built-in software programs; and far less vulnerability to viruses and other malicious software, which are overwhelmingly built to run on Windows.
Now, however, it’s much more of a toss-up between the two rivals. Windows 7 beats the Mac OS in some areas, such as better previews and navigation right from the taskbar, easier organization of open windows on the desktopand [sic] touch-screen capabilities. So Apple will have to scramble now that the gift of aflawed [sic] Vista has been replaced with a reliable, elegant version of Windows.

Mossberg’s review isn’t all praise, of course. The columnist criticizes Microsoft for getting rid of bundled mail, photo, address book, calendar, and video editing apps, which are now part of the downloadable Windows Live Essentials suite. He also finds the number of Windows 7 editions too confusing and their prices too onerous (fair enough, considering OS X 10.6 is a single, $29 upgrade). Finally, he laments the lack of an in-place upgrade process from Windows XP, which many Windows users are still using.

Mossberg concludes his review with, "Bottom line: Windows 7 is a very good, versatile operating system that should help Microsoft bury the memory of Vista and make PC users happy." That’s pretty much what we concluded in our own Windows 7 review, too.

Comments closed
    • DTShakuras
    • 10 years ago

    I don’t need Mossberg to tell me Windows 7 allows MS to make PC users happy. I’ve been happy ever since MS DOS till Vista and I will still be happy. Anybody who is technically sound enough, pretty much everybody on TR, can simply find the difference between the Win 7 editions. Obviously Mossberg is technically impaired that he cant do that so he gotta say its confusing.

    • TEAMSWITCHER
    • 10 years ago

    #86 Apple is making the absolute best notebooks right now with the MacBook Pro. Aluminum unibody construction, Magnetic latches and power cords, backlit keyboards and large feature rich trackpads. These features are definitely not fashion statements!

    If Windows and MacOS are truly equals, then I’m buying a Mac. Sure they are expensive, but made to a higher quality standards than the sticker covered, plastic sheathed, and crap-ware bloated PC laptops.

      • WaltC
      • 10 years ago

      I hate laptops…with a passion…;) One of my quirks, I suppose, but there it is.

    • oneofthem
    • 10 years ago

    “The columnist criticizes Microsoft for getting rid of bundled mail, photo, address book, calendar, and video editing apps”

    LOL

    • moog
    • 10 years ago

    Vista is better than XP in functionality and stability and doesn’t deserve to be slammed by the uneducated sheeple or the lazy ignoramuses in the IT dept. (The extra click prompted by the UAC to install Office was just too demanding.)

    Win7 is better and now that the IT dept has nothing to do all day long they can go suck it (and so can Mossberg).

      • WaltC
      • 10 years ago

      Agreed. What people like Mossberg fail to realize is that Win7 *is* Vista–but Vista after two years of polishing work by Microsoft and two years of listening to its users’ suggestions for further refinements.

      In fact, you might argue convincingly that Win7 is merely Vista Redux…;) Win7 shares about everything with Vista and pretty much nothing with XP. For goodness’ sake–XP was designed around and based around 10-year-old hardware and software standards. It was great in ’01 when it shipped, but in ’07 when Vista shipped I found Vista far better, myself–and much of that is because I had updated hardware that XP, while compatible with it, was never designed to fully utilize. Vista simply does a lot more with current hardware than XP is capable of doing.

      When Mossberg and others talk about how great Win7 is compared to Vista what they are really doing is apologizing for ever having called Vista a dog in the first place. Lots of people are like that–they loathe anything new and different–and when Vista shipped it was just too different from XP in a variety of ways. They couldn’t stomach the new paradigms of Vista because they didn’t like the learning and adjustment curve. So they trashed it.

      Flash forward to today, and those same people have had *2.5 years* to learn the Vista way of doing things, learn about the Vista driver models, Vista security paradigms, and the level of Vista’s support for newer hardware compared with XP’s level of support, and suddenly they find they like, really, really like the Vista paradigms as embodied in Win7 after all!

      But do they come back and say: “We jumped the gun in criticizing Vista,”…? Oh, no–they pretend instead that Win7 is a brand-new OS as different from Vista as Vista was different from XP. And of course that’s not true at all. In fact, the opposite is true–Win7 and Vista have far more common with each other than XP has with either.

      Basically, whenever you hear someone say, “I hated Vista but I love Win7,” what you’re really hearing is someone unwilling to admit he was wrong about Vista in the first place, and that it’s taken him 2.5 years and Vista Redux (Win7) to learn his lesson…;)

      People are like that, though–even the ones you’d expect would know better. How well I can remember when Win95 shipped and how for a full two years afterward many major tech pundits of the day could talk only about Win3.1 and how much better they thought it was than Win95. By the time Win98 shipped these same people gushed enthusiastically about it–apparently unable or unwilling to see that Win95 had far more in common with Win98 than either OS version ever had with Win3.1.

      Pretty much everybody now agrees that Win7 is a very nice OS–so it’s apparent to me that even the slow ones among us, given time enough, can be educated and can accept change and improvement. That’s a positive, I think…;)

        • MadManOriginal
        • 10 years ago

        I think you may have spelled out in a very long way the old adage ‘Don’t get an MS OS until SP1.’ The consistency of the 2 year later versions being great confirm that notion. With any of the major underpinning shifts – Win95, XP, Vista – there are problems at first, usually due to old hardware that doesn’t get any software updates if necessary or bad 3rd party drivers. It’s not ideal but I don’t know why people go crazy over problems out of the box in those cases, they should expect it.

          • Ragnar Dan
          • 10 years ago

          See updated #93.

    • mtizzle
    • 10 years ago

    FYI, from the same guy:

    “After months of testing Vista on multiple computers, new and old, I believe it is the best version of Windows that Microsoft has produced.” — Wall Street Journal, Jan. 18, 2007

    • oldDummy
    • 10 years ago

    IMO, Windows 7 is the OS to own and use, bar none.

    Apple innovates/”borrows” and then ms rips it off.

    Been that waysince Apple stole the idea of a mouse to use with panes.

    “same as it ever was, same as it ever was…..”

      • FubbHead
      • 10 years ago

      To me it seems most, if not all, of the “innovations” in their OS comes from the open source community. And many have been around for a long time. Apple have just streamlined them and baked them all into one coherent product. It’s good sense, but not innovation.

        • derFunkenstein
        • 10 years ago

        Not a flame: could you name a couple? I really don’t keep up on origins of that kinds of stuff, but you’re simply begging the question.

      • StashTheVampede
      • 10 years ago

      Apple “stole” a lot from Xerox PARC, much like a number of other companies did:
      §[<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PARC_(company)<]§ Let's run down the list of accomplishments: Computer generated bitmap graphics Graphical user interface featuring windows and icons WYSIWYG text editor InterPress (a resolution-independent graphical page description language and the precursor to PostScript) Ethernet local area computer network Fully formed object-oriented programming in the Smalltalk programming language and integrated development environment. You can list a number of companies that stole these ideas. Apple and MS happen to be the big ones.

    • oMa
    • 10 years ago

    I just installed W7 on my macbook air. I gave osx a month, but i’m never going back. If you like to use the mousepad, osx is nice, but if you are looking for working shortcuts, W7 is the best.

      • SGT Lindy
      • 10 years ago

      Seriously shortcuts? OS X blows Windows away. Master keyboard commands in OS X and its night and day better than windows. Add on something like Quicksilver for OS X…night and day.

      Basically you dont know what you speak of.

      §[<http://thenextweb.com/2009/05/04/quicksilver-mac-greatest-app-time/<]§

        • ssidbroadcast
        • 10 years ago

        Well /[

    • jethroelfman
    • 10 years ago

    We’ve heard how great the ‘latest’ Microsoft OS is, going right back to Windows 3.0. Then when it’s released it always turns out to be yet another slow, buggy, bloated piece of crap. I recall thatWin98SE was okay, and XP SP2 was okay. It takes them about 4 years to get the new major revision to passable condition. That gives Vista a couple years yet, since this one is simply Vista revisited. Give it until 2010 before you say that it’s up to snuff.

    • Creamsteak
    • 10 years ago

    [I still give the Mac OS a slight edge because it has a much easier and cheaper upgrade path;]

    Just the OS specifically? My understanding is the hardware is rather integrated and not nearly so easy to upgrade.

      • derFunkenstein
      • 10 years ago

      He did not say he was giving Macs an edge for upgradeability; just the OS.

    • flip-mode
    • 10 years ago

    The lack of an in-place upgrade is a blessing in (a thin) disguise. You don’t have to think about it very long to realize that most will benefit greatly from having all the accumulated garbage that they have foisted upon their systems get flushed.

    As for Win 7… I am a cautious believer. The taskbar is a vast, vast improvement, despite my early skepticism, and the window snapping is a useful feature that should have been available long ago. As for under-the-hood improvements, I don’t know enough to speak.

      • jstern
      • 10 years ago

      You’re right. I’m sure most people prefer to do a fresh install rather than upgrading in place. I even remember reading about that here on techreport, people preferring to do a fresh install for in case unnecessary junk from the previous OS stayed behind.

        • indeego
        • 10 years ago

        Not sure how old you guys are, but I’ve done hundreds, if not many hundreds, of OS installs, and it isn’t pleasant, nor do I believe the “cruft” theory of Windows. There used to be issues with registry bloat slowing down systems, or corrupting the registry itself, those don’t really exist much anymore if you take care of a system well.

        Take a tool like autoruns, and you can “tweak” your startup to your hearts content. or ccleaner, which removes a lot of the gathered up sh!t that *nix people never have to deal with.

        The time taken to reinstall scores of apps is dreadful. The idea that a backup won’t quite restore right, or some setting is amiss, it all sucks. Patching sucks. Reboots really truly suck. I think the general public gets very annoyed with both in-place upgrades and clean installs, it essentially uplifts the way they had it for no good reasong{<.<}g

          • shaq_mobile
          • 10 years ago

          “Not sure how old you guys are, but I’ve done hundreds, if not many hundreds, of OS installs, and it isn’t pleasant, nor do I believe the “cruft” theory of Windows.”

          lol condescension.

          Anyways, you probably aren’t the only one who has installed alot of operating systems. Some people also have their superstitions and depending on the setup, installing windows can take an hour and a halfish to three for the average experienced user. Doing that, more than once every two years, isn’t all that taxing. It probably takes less time to do that once a year than it does to download and execute those tools once a month for a year. Point is, we all have different ways of tackling the same problem, some may be quicker and some may be slower. No reason to act like someone is some sort of young upstart who hasn’t seen his share of the install screen just because he may prefer to reformat occasionally.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 10 years ago

            “condescending” is a key staple in all of the arguments that have ever been put forth by indeego.

    • indeego
    • 10 years ago

    Not one word about Games/DirectX11. Good old “Walt Andy Rooney” to the rescueg{<.<}g

      • derFunkenstein
      • 10 years ago

      Walt’s demographic (neither the one he fits in nor the one that generally reads his stuff) isn’t exactly into gaming.

    • ASherbuck
    • 10 years ago

    If he normally heralds Mac OSX as a superior operating system he has already blown all integrity with me.

    This should read “I’m a putz and Windows 7 is going to suck.”

    If I hadn’t already tried 7 that is what I would think – to think that a Mac users approval somehow matters is a joke. That’s like saying the kid who eats glue genuinely approves of the cafeteria food.

      • danny e.
      • 10 years ago

      amen. my feelings as well.

        • derFunkenstein
        • 10 years ago

        You’re both missing the bigger picture – if Win7 really appeals to Mac users, it could signal a reversal in trends. That’s very important to MS.

          • SGT Lindy
          • 10 years ago

          Never say Never, but very doubtful the reverse switching trend will happen anytime soon.

          Call me crazy when the rest of the PC market is losing money and Apple is still making money in these times, and they have the the higher priced products, I think MS should worry.

          MS has already peaked. They will remain a big player but GONE are the days it had 98% of the consumer desktop. Apple will never threaten the MS marketshare, but it and others will dent it. On top of that the “cloud” will eat some of its hold on OS and Office apps. Wont happen over night, but MS has nowhere to go but DOWN.

          Vista, 360 RROD problems, Zune failure, Windows Mobile losing its ass to RIM/Apple/Android soon, Google docs, Gmail for universities, Gmail for the SMB market, cloud apps everywhere, Linux in appliance’s everywhere, Apple popularity, MS has peaked and its down hill.

            • ASherbuck
            • 10 years ago

            Truths, Mac is a fashion statement. It’s like those bags people carry their dogs in. They serve no useful purpose but people just HAVE to HAVE them.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 10 years ago

            Well, aside from being an idiot you’re also wrong. Any computer is fairly equally usable with any currently-shipping OS.

      • KoolAidMan
      • 10 years ago

      Still laughing at this post, my lord you’re retarded

        • derFunkenstein
        • 10 years ago

        OH YEAH!!!

    • derFunkenstein
    • 10 years ago

    Honestly, I think he’s right. Win7 is what made switching back to the PC tolerable for me.

    • ssidbroadcast
    • 10 years ago

    He writes for the WSG and he’s allowed such amateur typos…

      • khands
      • 10 years ago

      I would put the blame there on the editor, but yeah.

      • SNM
      • 10 years ago

      Internet pre-publishing; it probably hasn’t been through the editor yet.

    • jdaven
    • 10 years ago

    Stories like these really bring a smile to my face. Both Apple and Microsoft are innovating like crazy. I may be a liberal socialist hippie when it comes to providing basic things important for the sanctity of life like health care, retirement, etc. but I love me some competition. This part of capitalism is a great idea and it works best when all companies are firing on all cylinders.

    I’m going to buy myself a Macbook Pro with Snow Leopard and dual boot with Windows 7 for my scientific job that needs Windows to run the lasers we build and Mac OS for everything else

    Keep it up Microsoft, Apple and all the rest of you. I love technology.

      • SubSeven
      • 10 years ago

      Yes… the gov’t staying the f**k out of the economy as much as possible is also part of capitalism, unfortunately, it looks like the only thing the gov’t is doing is getting bigger and sticking it’s nose into more things than it should (healthcare). Just wait till you have to wait 5hrs in the emergency room before you have a someone even approach you; oh and I forgot to mention that you wait on foot, as opposed to sitting. NY is already pretty much like that, and i’d be willing to bet that most states that have a large government presence (ie democratic government) share a similar state.

      Sorry, i know this is off topic, but i just had to rant.

        • ASherbuck
        • 10 years ago

        Hey Glenn Beck, are you going to cry on tonight’s show too?

          • SubSeven
          • 10 years ago

          Glenn Beck, that man is an imbecile. If you are going to be name calling, you could have at least used Rush Limbaugh. What is there to cry about?

            • tay
            • 10 years ago

            Plenty! About how horrible health care in this country is?

        • Roffey123
        • 10 years ago

        Uh-huh, you’ve never actually used a nationalised health system have you? Nor have you taken into account that the best health system in the world happens to be nationalised (i’ll give you a clue, it’s about 150 miles off florida).

        /[

          • SubSeven
          • 10 years ago

          Truly? You should go to Europe and see how their “superior” nationalized healthcare is doing. Don’t be a bafoon.

            • Roffey123
            • 10 years ago

            I happen to LIVE in Europe – Britain, in fact, so why don’t you shut it?

            Either way, lets not make this into a political thing shall we?

            • SPOOFE
            • 10 years ago

            Ah, Britain, where they’ll just sedate you until you’re dead instead of actually keeping you from dying… yeah, superiority. Clearly. Truly.

            • Roffey123
            • 10 years ago

            Riiiiiight, and that NEVER happens in the US. Oh no. You can ALL afford to keep your vegetable grandparent alive.

            ¬.¬

            • jdaven
            • 10 years ago

            I guess you were in a coma yourself during the whole Terry Schavio debacle. We constantly keep those alive that are brain dead. I take no side either way, but to blame the Britons for something we so patently carry out every day is nonsensical.

            • MadManOriginal
            • 10 years ago

            Do your own research and thinking. Numerous surveys show that broadly speaking Europeans are just as satisifed or not with various aspects of their health care system as Americans.

            • SPOOFE
            • 10 years ago

            Specifically speaking, they can simply be wrong. I don’t see how “sedate them ’til they’re dead” is a better system than “keep them alive and damn the costs”.

            • Roffey123
            • 10 years ago

            Ever thought it simply isn’t worth it? Why save someone’s life if their quality of life is going to be a fraction of what it was as a result?

        • indeego
        • 10 years ago

        Sigh. Leaveg{<.<}g Please?

        • MadManOriginal
        • 10 years ago

        I love the stupidity of thinking the solution to a problem is to do more of what got us there rather than less. That means the opposite of what you probably hope – we need less profit-motive privatization in health care not more. I don’t really think it ought to be Federal though.

          • FubbHead
          • 10 years ago

          I never understood why it must be a federal implementation, so to speak. Or a least it sounds like it, hearing you guys speak about it, and from the snippets here and there on the net. Federal this, federal that.

          There should be a very general federal policy, obviously, but shouldn’t it be up to the states, counties, or even cities to implement that policy? In a country as large as the US, I suspect the conditions and variables can differ a lot between areas.

          Or perhaps this is the case already? Can’t say I’m well informed about the discussion. 🙂

        • Arxor
        • 10 years ago

        Yep, once we remove that pesky government influence entirely we can boot those freeloaders and finally have somewhere to sit in ER! About time!

        In other news, though… perhaps there are some industries that /[

          • kamikaziechameleon
          • 10 years ago

          profit isn’t the only thing that happens in a free market(supposedly) there is also something called efficiency. The problem most nationalized healthcare faces is that efficiency goes out the window, basically everyone gets worse healthcare instead of less people get better healthcare. What do you want? I do think that nationalized or atleast better regulated healthcare is necessarily a bad thing but I’m very weary of it and its implimentation. I don’t think nationalized healthcare is something that should be rushed though, unlike many liberals.

            • MadManOriginal
            • 10 years ago

            Well I guess I’ll go all Dailytech here. By efficiency do you mean the 30% or so that private healthcare companies spend on overhead versus the 3% or so that Medicare does? Or is there some other measure of efficiency you prefer? It’s one thing to talk about economic theory of free markets but it’s wrong to assume those theories always work out in the real world. And yes, the devil is in the details of *how* things get done but that’s not a reason to do nothing or in Washington-speak ‘take it slow and debate the issue’ (put it off until the issue drifts away for a time.)

            I’m not really in to a fully natinalized plan either but there’s nothing wrong with public health care, in fact health care used to largely be public with state and city hospitals, many of which are privatized now, and then some kind of private insurance. With health care costs rising well above the rate of inflation it can almost be directly blamed for effectively flat wages over the past number of years – potential real wage increases above inflation get sucked up by health care. Too many people are insulated from this though because they have no idea what their health care plan through their employer really costs.

            • Ragnar Dan
            • 10 years ago

            Tell me, when did inflation start in the American medical industry? Give the exact date. If you can’t, then you don’t know what you’re talking about and should cease pushing your religion on others.

            • MadManOriginal
            • 10 years ago

            Ten years or more? It’s not like I can give an exact date but missing one specific piece of information on exactly when it stated doesn’t change the facts. It’s not all that hard to Google for some info. This was the third link for ‘medical cost inflation rate’ §[<http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml<]§ Granted it might be a changy-change thinktank or something, I don't know, but they cite other sources some of which are independent like the CBO. q[http://health.dailynewscentral.com/content/view/0001104/39/<]§ Yeah the rate of the *increase* was flattening out at that time but it's not hard to understand that healthcare cost increases above the rate of inflation hurts the nation as a whole even if the rate of increase (second derivative) is flat. And I'm not pushing any religion, my statement about medical cost inflation and their effect on real wage increases is based on fact not belief ;) Well, or I guess that the increased health costs that companies face may have gone to things other than wages, like shareholders, or may have gone in to useful things like R&D, capital equipment or what have you. Likely some combination of those types of things. It's hard to think of something that the savings might have gone toward that would be more wasteful for companies than insurance premiums though.

            • Ragnar Dan
            • 10 years ago

            The religion is coercive government control, and the taking of powers and the violations of rights explicitly forbidden by the Constitution over and over again.

            The first year there was medical inflation in the United States was 1965. Before then, prices were never rising faster, and were generally rising more slowly, than the general inflation caused by central banking and fiscal policy. That year is no mere coincidence. It’s the first year of Medicare and Medicaid, the spending on the latter of which, by the way, is estimated even by the Feds to be nearly 1/3 fraud.

            And if you claim Medicare “overhead” is 3%, then you will have to compare that to the AP section of accounting departments of health insurance companies, not the entire companies. Because all Medicare is supposedly doing is paying bills. It leaves out the overhead of their funding collected through payroll departments in the private economy, that of the IRS for their part of revenue, and the portion of general revenues diverted to Part B, just for starters. Then there’s the massive cost-shifting from Medicare/Medicaid to private insurers, which is probably the largest cause of the inflation. And that leaves out the control of medical schools people like Sen. Kennedy exercised, specifying sex, race, and other non-relevant (and constitutionally forbidden) criteria for attendees.

            The conclusion is obvious. If you’re not a fanatic, that is.

            • MadManOriginal
            • 10 years ago

            Your lack of any citations whatsoever and your dubious correlation logic without any information to back it up, especially when you demanded specific information from me when you apparently already had an answer you prefer, leaves me shrugging my shoulders. There’s one thing you leave out as well and that is whether a program like Medicare is beneficial as a whole even if it is costly. (Waste aside, obviously that helps no one and is part of what healthcare reform is looking to address if you didn’t know.) I don’t know for sure but what would you prefer, that we leave seniors or those without the means dangling in the wind when it comes to health care?

            I’m not a fanatic but I’m not so sure I can say the same for you. Would you prefer a free-wheeling no holds barred (same as other industries) health care free market?

            • Ragnar Dan
            • 10 years ago

            Did my reply show up? I don’t know how to find it if it’s in here somewhere… I usually read these things with “Flat”, but I can’t find it any way I select. Apparently “capped”, whatever that is since I don’t recall seeing it happen and grasping its meaning before now…

            So I’ll do this in multiple parts: Anyone serious enough about it can find the figures for himself if he’s interested in the subject, though not all such data appear to be freely available on the net, from what I’ve found searching. I do have an answer to my question, and of course I prefer the correct one, because it illustrates the truth of the matter, and the inherent dishonesty of those advocating a permanent war by the government against the people. I have been watching this particular subject for more than 20 years. I’ve heard the same specious arguments made, by most of the same politicians and media mouthpieces, several times. I think you have the intelligence to recognize what is being sold, if given enough information to make the fallacies apparent, and I would think you might be suspicious that you’ve evidently never even heard the question I asked until now. Why would that question and its answer not be widely discussed? Whose interest is served by not asking it?

            It’s patently obvious that the current problems have not always existed, otherwise we’d have had them generations ago, complaints and attempts to correct the problems would have occurred already. No one was complaining about the high cost of medical care in the 18th, 19th, or 20th centuries until quite a while after intervention by Congress, who had over a relatively short time increasingly imposed perverse incentives and separated consumers of health care from payers.

            More later depending on results.

            • SomeOtherGeek
            • 10 years ago

            Be careful where you are shoot your gun… MadManO is right on, just from personal experience. Even with the economy my company gave me a 2% raise… That is really not helping but hurting us. Not including other factors, just the focus on health insurance: In the last 3 years I have gotten a total raise of 13%, but my insurance premiums have raised from 350/month to 750/month. You can do the math. But MMO is totally on point. For me, at least. And I’m making good money, so I can image for those millions of others and I feel for them!

            • SubSeven
            • 10 years ago

            Well said. Unforunately, loss in efficiency isn’t the only cost of a nationalized healtchare. Nations with nationalized healtchare oddly have much higher marginal taxes. Could this be be a fluke? I think not. I see the way our beloved government is taking our tax money and squandering it about. The last thing i want to do is pay more taxes so that we can fund a questionable healtchare system implemented by the government. Sorry folks, but the reality is that the government’s track record isn’t very hot when it comes to “improving” current infrastructure. I am all for improving healtcare, but like MadMan said, I strongly believe that the gov’t should be the way to go.

            • Arxor
            • 10 years ago

            In general terms you’re right. The problem, kamikaziechameleon, is that health care is an example of when this really doesn’t apply.

            Though there are always exceptions, generally citizens of countries with nationalized health care would never trade what they have for all of this “choice” and “efficiency” that we have. It’s something that I’ve heard time after time in first hand conversations.

            Furthermore, “efficiency” is a term thrown around with reckless abandon. What does that really mean in this case? It does not mean efficient allocation of health care resources to address our needs as a nation. It means the allocation of health care resources in such a way that they maximize the profits of insurance company shareholders. This is why there are stories of people getting dumped by their insurance when the going gets tough, often for trivial reasons. In many cases the potential litigation for wrongful insurance termination is cheaper than actually keeping everyone on.

            There are some things that pursuit of profit is incompatible with. I would argue that health care is one, and prison systems are another.

            • indeego
            • 10 years ago

            When privatization has taken over things like war[contracting like blackwater] and utilities[Atlanta water], we have seen a *[

      • jdaven
      • 10 years ago

      Whoops, sorry guys. I did not mean for this to turn into a health care debate. I had hoped that we would center more on competition is good/bad, Microsoft is good/bad, Apple is good/bad, etc. topic. But I guess even a small comment can set people off.

      To Indeego that told me to leave. My comment was 95% about the article and only 5% was used to set up my comment on competition. If you think I’m a health care troll, then you are too insecure to even read a half a line about something like healthcare and probably too immature for such discussions.

      But again, my comments were to set up my love for competition even though I’m not a strict capitalist and that’s all. Sorry for getting anyone riled up.

      For the record, however, I’m for the public option and Madmanoriginal is awesome and smart too. Same for you too Arxor. 🙂

        • jdaven
        • 10 years ago

        Oh and also Asherbuck, tay, Roffey123, kamikaziechameleon and anyone else who has an open mind about this too, you guys rock.

        • MadManOriginal
        • 10 years ago

        lol it’s not your fault, it was SubSeven going totally off-topic apecrap that did it. But maybe we can have reasonable discussions here on TR about it unlike other *ahem* ‘daily’ tech sites.

          • jdaven
          • 10 years ago

          It’s so awesome that you realize that Dailytech had turned into a sort of conservative tech site. I first realized this shortly after the news section of Anandtech turned into Dailytech. The writers kept posting web blog editorials about how global warming is wrong and that global cooling is in effect. I soon realized that something was wrong and that my favorite tech news site was becoming something else entirely.

          I then switched to TR and never looked back.

          • SubSeven
          • 10 years ago

          I respect your openness Mad. Though i disagree on a few of your points, this is certainly a topic i would like to discuss. I maybe overly conservative, but I firmly believe that there those here that blindly march to the tune of the Gov’t not having a solid idea of what kind of a can of worms they are opening. I’ve always kind of leaned toward the “devil you know is better than the devil you don’t” philosophy. Maybe it’s just me.

            • jdaven
            • 10 years ago

            Nah, the government already runs a retirement system, a postal system, a welfare system, a healthcare system, an army, a scientific grant system, a park system, an environmental regulatory system, should I go on, a small business administration system, a bank account insurance system, etc etc etc.

            This healthcare is just another government program that will provide a basis for a much needed service that some cannot get. The attacks on the right have been flamed by Fox News and other conservative outlets in response to loosing so much power in both the Legislative and Executive branches. Actually, it is sort of like competition. Even though the public option is a good product like the Radeon 58xx series, the other side (Nvidia) will attack it in order to defend their own business. Nice tie in there.

            So Subseven, don’t worry. No can of worms. No Obama raising an army to take away our civil liberties. No losing of our private health insurance. Just another program to augment old programs like Medicare and Medicaid and make them better.

            By the way, do any of us work around here? Lol! I’m slacking off at my job that’s for sure.

            • MadManOriginal
            • 10 years ago

            Really the answer lies somewhere in the middle as is usually the case. All the extreme bickering is a chore to hear but if it ends up with a useful compromise solution it serves its purpose, if it ends up with ‘do nothing’ then its just useless spinning of wheels.

            Some of the extremeness is just flat-out lies which pisses me off though because it just ruins any useful debate. Death panels? Puhlease…there was a woman outside the post office last week who had a ‘Stop Obama Nazi Healthcare’ table with defaced pictures of him with a Hitler moustache and she was convinced there will be involuntary end of life death camps for old people and asked me if I knew what Soylent Green was. I mean, seriously? The best part was with her talk of Nazi-ism she mentioned one of Obama’s advisors Dr. Emanuel (Rahm Emanuel’s – Obama’s Chief of Staff – brother) saying as much about death panels etc (it turns out he was just stating fact that lots of healthcare costs go toward end of life measures and that optional end of life counseling same as is available through Medicare now can reduce those costs)…I asked if she was aware the Emanuels are Jewish but I don’t think she got the connection to the silliness of Nazi talk. I’m pretty sure she didn’t know much about what the Nazi party and fascism was about either.

            And yes I’ve gone and treaded in to Godwin’s Law territory. The thread is now complete!

        • Arxor
        • 10 years ago

        Why thank you Jdaven.

        And I second MadManOriginal. It was SubSeven going on a wild tangent that got us going.

        Still, I think this has been largely civil. Good for us.

        And now that I think about it, I never got access to the R & P forum even though I posted asking for it ages ago.

        • SomeOtherGeek
        • 10 years ago

        I wouldn’t worry about it too much, but I think he was pointing at SubSeven. Best ask him tho.

        You put up a good comment and I have to agree with you, that it is a good/bad thing, but competition is always good, for the customers at least. Nothing like bruising an ego by other company making something better. The same is going with the nVidia/ATi video card war. I just hope that Intel will not do the same by getting their ego in the way. But then they set up the “tick-tock” process, so maybe not…?

        And speaking of healthcare, we need more competition in the insurance part of the industry anyway, insurance prices are killing us. For me, paying for the family package is costing me 750 bucks a month and the company is paying half of it! 1500 bucks/month for insurance is a major rip-off! So, I think at least getting the gov’t to provide a health insurance option will go a long way to kicking up the competition. That is just my opinion, of course.

          • jdaven
          • 10 years ago

          Whoops, sorry indeego. My profuse apologizes. I could not follow the comment tree to the right comment. I take it all back.

        • SubSeven
        • 10 years ago

        jdaven, it is not you. I turned this into a crapstorm (i did give warning though). Indeego wasnt telling you to leave; it was directed at me and my rant. Fortunately, this is a request I will gladly ignore.

          • Arxor
          • 10 years ago

          As mildly trollish as it was, it brought up a good topic, and we’ve had a largely productive discussion. Good times =]

            • SubSeven
            • 10 years ago

            Haha. Actually i was conducting a personal experiment. I wanted to see if starting up a contraversial topic would produce a thread that would be capped. I estimated that it would and i guessed it woudl happen around 5:30pm eastern time or 5hrs. I was half right. It is now almost 2:30, and not even two hours have passed and the thread is already capped. Granted that a good chunk of the responses in this thread are my own, but still an interesting observation. Lots of very active participants here.

            • jdaven
            • 10 years ago

            Uh…what?!

            It’s a proven fact that saying something controversial on the internet will produce a lot of comments in a thread. This is nothing that needs any further experimentation.

            • SubSeven
            • 10 years ago

            Time was the bet, not the latter piece.

        • jdaven
        • 10 years ago

        Again I would like to apologize to indeego. Didn’t see who he was commenting too.

        • indeego
        • 10 years ago

        How convenient how you don’t want an argument but you prompted one? [edit I guess for subseven then, apology accepted]

        “Yes… the gov’t staying the f**k out of the economy as much as possible is also part of capitalism, unfortunately, it looks like the only thing the gov’t is doing is getting bigger and sticking it’s nose into more things than it should (healthcare). ”

        Why is this “more than it should?” Do you think education, military, utilities, emergency should be run by gov’t but they should not run healthcare? Do you realize that the government already runs healthcare for tens of millions of Americans? Do you think private insurers contribute anything positive to the health-care experience?

        “Just wait till you have to wait 5hrs in the emergency room before you have a someone even approach you; ”

        I had to wait 3 hours. I had a hernia. I didn’t mind. Why do you think it would take 5 hours? Do you have examples of other 1st world countries where 5 hour wait times for actual emergency services are common?

        “oh and I forgot to mention that you wait on foot, as opposed to sitting. NY is already pretty much like that, and i’d be willing to bet that most states that have a large government presence (ie democratic government) share a similar state.””
        Instead of betting why don’t you link to credible nontrollish facts?
        Currently the wait times are as you mention:
        §[<http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/709913<]§ So I'm curious as to why you think it would get worse under government mandated healthcare? Do you currently wait 5 hours for firemen to put out a fire? Is your kid seen at 10 a.m. instead of 9 a.m. for lessons? Did the Iraq war start later than desired? Where is this rationalization that a government run health system will result in worse care, especially since the top medical establishments in the world have socialized medicineg{

          • SubSeven
          • 10 years ago

          First of all, you need to calm down. We can debate this in a calm and rational manner without insulting each other. And now, to answer some of your points:

          Yes i do think a lot of what the gov’t does today should be done by private industries. I’m not sure if you are aware or not, but utilities are run by private companies, so i don’t see your point there. Schools should definitely be private unless a complete overhall isn’t performed on the current system. US schools public schools SUCK (that is K-12). I find it funny to note that the best schools in the country happn to be private. Also, interestingly there is a vast shift in upper education. Post elementary institutions are top notch here in the US; and again, the best ones all happen to be private. I’m not sure what you mean by emergency so I can’t comment on that. Army is a very intersting criteria. It is my opinion that the gov’t should provide defense and enforce laws as well as resolve civil disputes (a mediator, i.e. court system). I can make a good bet that a private army would have many benefits but there would be many shortcommings as private industry cannot exercise the same power the government can (declare war, draft, etc). The reason the current army configuration works very well is because despite the fact the army is a “government” entity, it is very much supported by the private sector, companies like Boein, General Dynamic, Northrop Gruman, etc are the reason the US army is what it is today. Unfortunately, there are pitfalls here as well (and i hope you can agree) and you can see them when you read about idiotic, clueless politicians telling generals how to do things, criticizing soldiers for actions they had done under fire and so on.

          How old are you indeego? I am sorry you had a hernia and i am glad you could handle waiting 3hrs (which in my opinion is despicable) to get attention. My grandfather was taken to ER with kidney stones (very painful). He had to wait 5hrs to get someone to come over. There were no seats for him, he had to stand for a majority of that time. You ever see a grown man cry like a child because of pain and be unable to do anything about it? Well, he has medicare and boy does he get treated “well” with it. You think this is an isolated event? I can tell you stories like this all day long. So please, don’t compare yourself to a vast majority of people.

          I couldn’t open that link as i needed to register to the website so i’m not sure what data was there. As someone that knows abit about statistics, i’ll tell you that you should be careful when reading data. Remember to think about who collected the data, who he was working for, what data was collected and from what hospitals, and lastly what the agenda of the author is. This questions can mean all the difference in the world. I speak from personal experience and from personal observation and i place a far heavier weight on that than any crap data you can find out there from any so called credible source. There are 30 “credible” research articles everyday that come out and say coffee is good for you just like there are 30 “credible” research articles that come out the next day and say the exact opposite. So i say again, be careful who publishes the report and what their agenda is. Using statisics, i can make an argument you want. Hell, i can probably make Adolf Hitler a hero for killing 6 million people using statistics if i tried hard enough.

    • PRIME1
    • 10 years ago

    l[

      • fdisker
      • 10 years ago

      Vista’s reputation is still a product of the deservedly bad press it got at launch. Vista post service pack 2 is a very different beast. I find the performance and stability on par with Windows 7 RTM.

        • FubbHead
        • 10 years ago

        I will have to agree with this.

        • SomeOtherGeek
        • 10 years ago

        Yea, it is only for what I have read as I didn’t make the switch to Vista until SP2. I’m not really sure to make to switch to Win7 just for the eye-candy. Don’t get me wrong, I know there were production improvements, but to justify the price, it is hard to say.

    • MadManOriginal
    • 10 years ago

    How much of the un-bundling of various apps was or is driven by all the anti-trust flak MS gets? It’s hypocritical if someone complains about MS bundling but then complains it’s bad to not include apps.

      • SNM
      • 10 years ago

      From what I remember it was a development time thing — they wanted to separate those apps from the general Windows 7 milestones and focus on getting the actual OS out the door.

      • Sargent Duck
      • 10 years ago

      Agreed. Microsoft has been slammed with bundling IE and Media Player. I imagine as a preventive measure, Microsoft moved many of its other software to be downloaded, just so they wouldn’t be sued..again. I don’t think its fair to criticize Microsoft on this point.

      • w00tstock
      • 10 years ago

      Yeah I think this guy must have slept threw the whole anti-trust thing…

      • derFunkenstein
      • 10 years ago

      I don’t believe that Mossberg ever complained about MS bundling, and the only way it could be hypocritical is if he did.

        • SPOOFE
        • 10 years ago

        Regardless, it’s indicative of him being out of touch if he doesn’t recognize that MS is in a very different situation with bundled software than Apple.

          • derFunkenstein
          • 10 years ago

          Not necessarily. He can still want bundled stuff. Who’s to say that he doesn’t know full well? He very well may know about anti-trust complaints but wish they were bundling apps anyway.

        • MadManOriginal
        • 10 years ago

        Yeah I didn’t mean he had complained necessarily, I have no idea who he is or what his past stances are wrt bundling, I was talking more generally. Mac people probably don’t care too much about what MS bundles it’s usually other softwre companies that want to sell programs for Windows PCs that do. Others like Paul Therott (sp) have cited the un-bundling as likely driven by anti-trust worries.

          • derFunkenstein
          • 10 years ago

          but it’s not hypocrisy; just a difference of opinion.

          it’s all semantics; feel free to ignore me.

    • zdw
    • 10 years ago

    People will still cling to XP…

    … and run it in emulation on their Macs.

      • _Sigma
      • 10 years ago

      Or in Win7!

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This