Random Bits

Some of you may remember when Vista came out I felt compelled to add my 2 cents regarding a review I’d read touting how terrific Vista was going to be (Feb. 5, 2007). Well here comes Windows 7 (can Microsoft PLEASE settle on a versioning scheme? Do we need to go from straight numbers: 1, 3.1 to years: 98, 2000 to codes: XP, Vista back again to numbers?! Really Microsoft?) and once again I’ve just read my first review and it touts the following – red text denotes my keen insights:

A taskbar that allows you to stick icons of your fave apps to launch them quickly, “combining the best features of the old Windows taskbar and Apple’s Dock”.
Really? “launch them quickly”? Launch them quickly. Launch them quickly… waaaait a minute! You mean like the Quick Launch portion of the existing taskbar?? Does the reviewer not know this feature has existed for quite some time, or is Microsoft trying to sell this as new to Windows 7?

File folders can now be organized into “libraries.” You can have a photo library, for instance, that gives you quick access to pictures in folders spread out over your hard drive, or even several hard drives.
I’m sorry, you mean like creating a folder on your desktop and then in that folder adding shortcuts to the folders…. spread… out… over… your… hard… drive(s)…. oh right. Yeahhhhh, ummmm… forgot that you could already do that.

Like Vista, Windows 7 will ask you twice if you really want to make changes to your settings or install programs, for the sake of security. But Windows 7 does it less often, and the prompts can be turned off.
Are we seriously this desperate to find good things to say about Windows 7? “We’ll still bug the shit out of you asking ‘Are you sure? Yeah but are you really sure?’ but we’ll do it slightly less often!”

Windows 7 has implemented more touch screen-like functionality.
Great for those of you who have touch screens or touch pads! The other 95% of us don’t give a rat’s ass.

And of course, the usual litany of “if you (can) upgrade we’ll make it as painful as possible AND break as much as we can”:

• Windows 7 is 64-bit, so some of your hardware drivers may no longer work. Kiss your old workhorse printer goodbye.
• Upgrading from XP involves reinstalling every single app you HAD installed and “find[ing your] files in the folder where Windows 7 tucks them away”. Not much incentive to upgrade, now is there? I don’t intend on spending a few days reinstalling the gargantuan number of apps I currently have installed. I dread the task when I purchase a new PC or have to replace a hard drive, I’m certainly not going to willingly do it for virtually NO gain.

New features? Not so much. More like Microsoft holding the hand of the less technically savvy of us and trumpeting it as a good reason to drop a wad of cash – $120 to upgrade. And as usual error messages are obscure and troubleshooting from the website provided no answer to the problem (at least in one reviewer’s experience). And oh yeah, the reviewer noted an increase in boot time. His suggestion? Don’t power down, just start using sleep mode. WTF? I’ve run out of band-aids.

Below are 2 paragraphs taken straight from the Wall Street Journal’s opinion pages. What bothers me most is not the politics of the matter. I’m more than willing to leave them completely out of the rant. But what I’ve noticed as I’ve matured (and hopefully become wiser) is that most reporting, whether it be done in a newspaper or a magazine, a well-respected publication or a rag, leaves out information or makes misleading statements in order to get your dander up in support of their arguments (see this other rant).

This opinion article lists a series of tax credits Mr. Obama proposes. These credits include college tuition, child-care, clean car, mortgage interest, etc. First we talk about the middle-class, then we throw out the tantalizing statement that “…more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all.” Then we read the following:

“Here’s the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be “refundable,” which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer — a federal check — from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this “welfare,” or in George McGovern’s 1972 campaign a ‘Demogrant.’ Mr. Obama’s genius is to call it a tax cut.

The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year. The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.”

Now again, leaving the political arguments out of it – yes some of it could be considered welfare, but that aside, what’s wrong with providing middle-income families with tuition or child-care tax “credits”? Anywho, here’s what I find really misleading… let’s break it down:

“…you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer — a federal check — from taxpayers to nontaxpayers.”
After opening salvos (a couple of paragraphs) revving you up to think about the poor… welfare… “demogrants”, this statement immediately gets your dander up thinking people are getting a free ride. Why those no-good nontaxpayers! 1972… welfare… whyyyy I oughta! Whaddya think you’re doin’ there Mr. Obama? You can’t fool ME calling these “tax credits”!

“The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year.”
44%? FORTY-FOUR PERCENT?!! Most not paying taxes but getting a check back anyway?! THE OUTRAGE! But… wait… didn’t… aren’t… waaaaait just a minute! Something’s not right here… back the truck up.

You got me thinking about low-income folks and those who “…already pay no income taxes at all”, then said “no income-tax liability” and threw in the word “welfare” just to make sure I was thinking about those folks, so maybe I wouldn’t question what you meant by “no income-tax liability”. And in my outrage I missed that you said 44% of all tax filers. We’re no longer talking about just low-income folks, are we? Youuuu! Youuuuu! You had me going there for a minute. What you’re REALLY saying is that anyone who doesn’t have to file due to a low enough income (which doesn’t just mean the poor!) and anyone due a tax refund! I’ve got news for you buddy: “nontaxpayer” and “no income-tax liability” are NOT interchangeable terms!

So which is it? Are we talking nontaxpayers or people who don’t owe and/or have overpayed (no income-tax liability)? Talk about a “clever pitch”. Talk about an “illusion”.