Paul Thurrott's SuperSite for Windows
Home > Type > News > Five secrets to faster Vista starts

Five secrets to faster Vista starts

Nov. 27, 2007 Paul Thurrott | Paul Thurrott's Supersite for Windows

I've come to really like and appreciate Ed Bott, and here's a typical example of why: Not only does this article actually help Vista owners in general, it includes a very necessary call-out to Walt Mossberg, who baldfacedly promotes all things Apple and makes spurious complaints about Microsoft at the drop of a hat. Bravo, Ed. And shame on the Mossman. Again.

Here we go again.

The wise old men of mainstream tech journalism are once again repeating the conventional wisdom that Vista is slow to start up and slow to shut down. They’re wrong.

In this post, I’ll explain why they’re wrong and show you how you can fix the problem if you encounter a slow startup.

The latest to repeat this accusation is the Wall Street Journal’s Walt Mossberg, who slipped this doozy in his review of Leopard:

Even though I had cleared out all of the useless trial software Sony had placed on the Vaio, it still started up painfully slowly compared with the Leopard laptop ... It took the Vista machine nearly two minutes to perform a cold start and be ready to run, including connecting to my wireless network. The Leopard laptop was up, running and connected to the network in 38 seconds.


Three minutes to start up? This is the same crappy Sony notebook that Mossberg was complaining about back in April, and it seems downright unfair to pick this one sluggish machine and continue using it as the benchmark. But whatever. Walt, if you’re really interested in fixing this machine’s slow startup times, keep reading. Or call me and I’ll help walk you through it.

Ah ha ha. Excellent. Read the whole article. Lots of good advice. For you and Walt.

And for the record: Once again, the conventional wisdom about Vista is wrong. I've certainly never experienced slow system boot times, but it's interesting to me how quickly and easily people just accept this stuff as fact.

Discuss this Article 44

Spidubic
on Nov 27, 2007
My Vista machine no longer boots like it once did but I have also installed and removed a lot of software and do have quite a bit of software starting with Vista.
joe-dokes
on Nov 27, 2007
How about this paul, you probably have at least three vista computers lying around, why don't you get out the stop watch and time each of them and report the time. Then boot your mac book into leopard and report its time. Sure the Mac Book isn't the fastest booting mac on the planet, but since it's what most people buy it should be interesting. If Vista is as fast as 10.5 or 10.4 great, if its faster you might have some bragging rights, if slower. Well then I doubt we'll see the numbers. Regards Joe
cesjr
on Nov 27, 2007
Ed Bott's piece is a rebuttal? More like a confirmation: "And there you have it. In every case, I was able to identify a third-party cause for the problems I was encountering. Hardware, software, add-ins, or a configuration option. In every case, it was something I had done (or that the PC maker had done for me), and in every case I was able to undo the damage with some basic troubleshooting. The moral of the story? The expandability of Windows PCs is a two-edged sword. Yes, those little add-ins and software programs can do marvelous things, but they can also wreak havoc. That’s one reason I’m extraordinarily cautious about every piece of software I install." Right, but are ordinary users "extraordinarily cautious"? Can, or do they want, to do what Ed tries to characterize as "basic troubleshooting."? The two-edged sword of Vista (and Windows) basically just ends up cutting up the average user, who doesn't even benefit from all the expandability and flexibilty of windows (power users like Bott are different of course). Bott's "rebuttal" just shows that all kinds of things can slow Vista start up down, so almost everyone's machine is likely to be hit by something (unless you spend time tracking down whatever combination of factors are causing it on your Vista machine." Ed's attempt to rely on a few anecdotal reports from Apple's support forums doesn't really work. First of all, support forums are where you find the people who are having trouble and looking for a solution - it's not a representative sample. Mossberg was simply reviewing Vista and found slow startups. Other reviewers have reported the same - that's a problem when reviewers are reporting something.
Sir_Timbit
on Nov 27, 2007
Vista is slower than XP, but that's not the problem here. Most people who are getting Vista for the first time are getting it preinstalled on new home systems. The problem, of course, is that most PCs DO have tons of crapware preinstalled, or worse, once Windows boots up, you watch all this junk get installed for you if you're using your new laptop for the first time. So all this junk just slows down Vista. And THAT is what sets the mood for Vista users. They don't care whether or not it's the OS. All they know is that from their experience Vista is slow. Of course it is! Look at all those stupid little icons beside the date & time. :-) Sony's have been in the press recently as having the most preinstalled crapware of the leading OEMs. Three minutes to start up is ridiculous. (As a side, CNET & ZDNet just posted another article on how XPsp3 is testing to be twice as fast as Vista, even with Vista SP1.) http://www.news.com/Windows-XP-outshines-Vista-in-benchmarking-test/2100... And if you're buying a new PC, you pretty much have to wait until all the crap is installed, otherwise how will you get to the point where you can create your precious restore DVDs? If you buy an Acer or an HP, you still have to create those restore DVDs, meaning you can never go back to reinstalling Windows from scratch and get a clean install. At least a MacBook comes with DVDs that let you reinstall the OS without any other third-party junk, search toolbars, etc. Thankfully, there are utilities out there that will remove a lot of this stuff automatically and without much fuss. And at least some OEMs like Dell are offering systems without the junk.
notawindowsuser
on Nov 27, 2007
Walt Mossburg ran the tests again this time on a Macbook and still found Vista to be slower than Leopard "Last week, you compared the start-up time of Windows Vista to Apple's new Leopard operating system, and found Vista to be much slower. But you used different laptops for each. What would the numbers be on the same Macintosh running the two operating systems? A I ran the tests again on a single computer, a fairly new Apple iMac, which can be started up, and restarted, in either Vista or Leopard. I used the Mac's Boot Camp feature, in which only one operating system is running at a time, has its own dedicated portion of the hard disk and fully controls the hardware. The machine uses an Intel processor and other key components commonly found on Windows machines, and runs Windows just like a Dell or any standard Windows PC, without any involvement from the Mac operating system. This Vista installation doesn't include any of the speed-robbing trial software commonly included by PC makers, though it does have security software from Symantec. However, the test results were very similar — Leopard started and restarted much more quickly than Vista did. In this simple test, I timed both operating systems from a cold start and a restart until the computer was fully ready for operation, with the hard disk quiet and the network connection established. The cold start, beginning with the computer completely off, took Leopard 46 seconds, but took Vista one minute and 42 seconds. A restart, beginning with the computer running an e-mail program, the Firefox Web browser, and Microsoft Word, took one minute and two seconds for Leopard, and three minutes and 17 seconds for Vista."
cesjr
on Nov 27, 2007
Also, Paul is simply incorrect that Mossberg "baldfacedly promotes all things Apple." He has given negative reviews to Apple products, for example the Airport Express, saying that it “falls far short” of being an ideal solution because of limitations. He noted that "unlike most of its competitors, Apple's product lacks any remote control or remote user interface. . . . That's just unacceptable in a device of this kind." He also gave the thumbs down to iWork '08 compared to MS Office: "But iWork simply isn’t as powerful or versatile as Microsoft Office, especially when it comes to word processing and spreadsheets. And it suffers from a design that places far more emphasis on making documents look beautiful than on the nuts and bolts of the actual process of writing and number-crunching." "But for office-suite users more concerned with function than form, I’d recommend sticking with Office." He also panned the Apple Mighty Mouse, saying he liked one of MS's mice better. Of course the world will end before Paul corrects his erroroneous statement.
notawindowsuser
on Nov 27, 2007
Opps, that should be an iMac not a Macbook, and the link is: http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/209648
DRWAM
on Nov 27, 2007
My buddy with a new $4500 custom PC from CyberpowerPC.com cannot get his nVidia 8800GTS [dual DVI] to successfully use a dual monitor setup with Vista. He has tried MS support [nVidia level 1 said that she did not think that you can use two monitors with a computer]. The startup is very long and either the resolution switched to a lower rez, or only one monitor will work. Vista Ultimate. Then he tried Vista home premium when the Ultimate install disc failed.
DRWAM
on Nov 27, 2007
Any suggestions about the dual monitor problem are appreciated, but the guy is very Windows savvy. The latest drivers did not help. I am thinking that he should just bite the bullet and buy a second video card, or install XP. How 'bout it gents, and weedmonk too?
clindhartsen
on Nov 27, 2007
Well, DRWAM, I don't know how diferent the GTS and GTX series are, but you might consider this link over on the nVidia support area..... http://nvidia.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/nvidia.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_... ......Looking at it otherwise, you might always consider a complete dump of your graphics drivers and a clean install of the latest release if you haven't already.
daveinla
on Nov 27, 2007
What a piece of c***p that article... I can't believe bandwidth get wasted citing and debating on stupidities like that.
daveinla
on Nov 27, 2007
What a piece of c***p that Ed Bott article... I can't believe bandwidth get wasted citing and debating on stupidities like that.
shark47
on Nov 27, 2007
"What a piece of c***p that Ed Bott article..." Yes. Can't believe someone would actually try to help Windows users instead of simply complaining. Hats off to Walt Mossy for using every given opportunity to tout Apple's products.
shark47
on Nov 27, 2007
Isn't there a law that prevents journalists from stating that Macs may have problems too? There shoud be one. This is unacceptable. I will boycott Paul and Ed until Ed takes back his words about Walt and Apple.
heran
on Nov 27, 2007
The new test from Walt Mossburg is again misleading. He states that the vista installation "does have security software from Symantec". Got it? Symantec is infamous for slowing down your PC, and Ed Bott's lists "Sluggish security software" as top reason that slowing down PCs. If Walt really want a fair competition, why not clean installed two OSes and get latest drivers instead?
Dipsh t Admin
on Nov 28, 2007
cesjr, you're using a couple of examples to deflate what Mossberg has been for quite some time, an Apple shill. Have you seen his multi-page review of the iPod Video a year or two ago? It was so over the top glowing that I thought he and Katie would wet themselves. And this was for a device that was really just an improvement over the last generation. How about his article about the greatness of Bonjour? Also note that these negative reviews are for Apple's non-core products. Besides his reviews, take a look at Mossberg's Mailbox. He can't help but disparage Windows at every opportunity he can. From the Shillberg review that nawu posted: "with the hard disk quiet" I'm not buying that. I know from experience and from what MS has stated themselves, Vista is ready to be used much earlier than when the hard drive dies down. The hard drive on my desktop is churning away at times, albeit very unobtrusively, but that doesn't mean that I can't load apps. "the average user, who doesn't even benefit from all the expandability and 'flexibility' of Windows" Not true. The average user, the one that is typically buying a Windows computer from between $500-1000, certainly does benefit from the Windows ecosystem. The OEMs can cut costs, which benefits the consumer's wallet.
bugfaceuk
on Nov 28, 2007
You know, I hate FUD as much as anyone, and to be honest, I don't really care too much about boot times. I mean, how often do you re-boot (and please refrain from silly BSOD things here, that's not the point)? However, my personal experience of Vista, both upgraded installations and new machines with it pre-installed, is indeed very slow booting. One of the machines is not cheap, it's high-end and well spec'd. What I object to is the following: "The wise old men of mainstream tech journalism are once again repeating the conventional wisdom that Vista is slow to start up and slow to shut down. They’re wrong" Um. Not for me they are not. I don't really care that you can "do things" to make it boot faster, I'm sure you can. However, I don't build my own PC's anymore, largely because I'm just too busy to do it. And the same for Vista boot-times. I simply don't expect to HAVE to do something to make it boot faster. All that said, MS have a much harder problem than Apple. MS really don't know what hardware you have, and Apple have a much smaller set to manage. Whilst I occasionally express personal frustration at waiting for a Vista machine to boot, that's all it is... personal frustration. I'm more than happy to accept that others have a lightning fast out of the box boot. Woo-hoo for them, and boo-hoo for me. So Vista boots slowly, there are more important things in an OS than boot time. I guess what I'm trying to say is... slow boot times on Vista is perhaps entirely predictable given the size of the "hardware space" Vista has to run on. Slow booting of Leopard would be less forgivable, as Apple have it easier.
cesjr
on Nov 28, 2007
"cesjr, you're using a couple of examples to deflate what Mossberg has been for quite some time, an Apple shill." What I want to know is, how do some people actually conclude that Mossberg is an Apple shill but don't think Paul is an MS shill at the same time? By what standard can you say Mossberg's a shill, but Paul's not? Paul gives overwhelmingly favorable reviews to MS products. Sure sometimes he doesn't, and he points out flaws or problems in MS products, but so does Mossberg when it comes to Apple. So how is Mossberg a shill, but Paul not? Another thing, Mossberg doesn't have any personal financial interest in pumping Apple products. While Paul clearly does have a financial interest in favorably reviewing and writing about MS products. His whole income (and ability to feed his family and pay the bills) comes from MS windows based sites, books, etc. All his inside contacts are at MS. He has lots of relationships with people inside MS, and outside MS, whose whole careers focus around MS products. Paul, quite seriously, has something to lose if alternatives begin to substantially displace MS. Walt is just writing what he thinks of products. That's it. He happens to write good reviews for most apple products, because as most people will admit today, they make good products, very good products, for the most part. Walt also, more than most journalists, writes with the average user in mind. He has little patience for hard to use products. Apple's whole focus is on ease of use and the average user - so it's really not too surprising that Walt likes most Apple products. Walt and Apple have the same focus.
Dipsh t Admin
on Nov 28, 2007
"Another thing, Mossberg doesn't have any personal financial interest in pumping Apple products." True, but Mossberg is on the very short list of A-list Apple reviewers that get the goodies well before the general tech journalist crowd. I think it was like four journalists that got the iPhone early, and Mossberg was one of them. Pogue was another, of course. Why? Apple knows that they will get a good review out of them or one that is at least generally favorable. So while that is not a financial interest, it is still an interest that Mossberg would have to be very favorable to Apple. He's also one of the few that actually has spoken to his Jobness. Not many are in that boat. So yes, Mossberg is actually quite close to Apple. Your description of Paul can easily be transferred to Mossberg. However, Paul is simply not as close to the source as Mossberg is. "By what standard can you say Mossberg's a shill, but Paul's not?" I never said Paul was not a shill. But since I agree with him in many cases, I'm not going to label him a shill per se. Heck, that is why I come here and read what he has to say, since I do agree with his general views on tech, and that means that I can trust him as a source for news and reviews. However, I also read Mossberg since it is the only true tech bastion in my preferred newspaper the Wall Street Journal, of which I have a subscription. Which brings up another point. The WSJ is a general publication, and therefore, as you mention, he should be catering to the average Joe. But as a journalist, he should also not be blinded by the white boxes in front of him. A journalist that operates on sites called the Win Super Site and Windows IT Pro should be taken with a similar grain of salt.
DRWAM
on Nov 28, 2007
My buddy has an appointment for a call to Microsoft this evening to fix his problem. The new computer will occassionally boot with two monitors and the coorrect resolution, but only after several reboots and at least one control panel adjustment. Is this problem isolated to nVidia, or have there been ATI driver problems as well. He has reinstalled Vista 3 times, along with driver updates. I am thinkiong thgat a second vid card would be a good fix. However, the boot times have improved since the startup software wa reduced. I will never use Norton again as it has always given me problems since 2004 [and 2005 and 2006].
cesjr
on Nov 28, 2007
Dipsh t Admin, I agree with you that there is some built in bias from any reviewer or journalist that depends on getting early product, or information, from a company. There is also some bias in the sense that if you're an A student, the teacher is going to look at your work more favorably. That's far from being a "shill" however. It's more like part and parcel of the product review process, and it's something that applies equally to Paul (who depends on MS for inside info he can publish before others - note how Paul is always saying that he said something first, after other journalists report it? That's because in his business, getting the info first is necessary to survive. He's in the "news" business, so it better be news. I really don't have a problem with people taking reviews or what journalists say with a grain of salt. Everyone has some degree of built-in bias. I just think it's kind of unprofessional and crazy for Paul to continually attack Mossberg as biased in favor of Apple when Paul is so obviously bias in favor of MS. It's hard to find a clearer example of the pot calling the kettle black. He ought to stop it, but I don't expect we'll see that. If he disagrees with Walt on the substance, fine, but he should stick to the substance.
lotsamystuff
on Nov 28, 2007
Ed's got a big "but"; i.e., "Vista doesn't start slowly BUT if it does..." Yeah, right. "You'll never have a problem with Vista, BUT if you do..." "You'll never want to downgrade to XP, BUT if you do... Paul knows Mossberg made a direct comparison to startup times on the same hardware, BUT he ignored it..." See how the "big but" negates the whole first part of any sentence it's a part of? It also amazes me that Paul constantly rags on the Mac for things being "nondiscoverable", and hints that you need a higher level of sophistication to use one than is required of the average Windows user. Yet, he seems to think that jumping through hoops just to improve something as simple as startup time is normal and easy for the average user. What a joke. @dipshit: "Have you seen his multi-page review of the iPod Video a year or two ago? It was so over the top glowing that I thought he and Katie would wet themselves." How does that differ substantially from Thurrott's 5-Paul-Head glowing review of the iPod Video on the "Windows IT Pro Paul Thurrott's Supersite for Windows" during the same timeframe? http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/apple_ipod_5g_2006.asp
Dipsh t Admin
on Nov 28, 2007
"How does that differ substantially from Thurrott's 5-Paul-Head glowing review of the iPod Video on the "Windows IT Pro Paul Thurrott's Supersite for Windows" during the same timeframe?" Nice find. It does differ however. Space on a page of a web site is relatively unlimited. Since it's his own site, he even has more levity, and no editors to contend with. Space on a once a week newspaper column is severely limited in comparison. Space in the WSJ is even more limited than it would be in a regular rag. Big distinction. "Paul knows Mossberg made a direct comparison to startup times on the same hardware" And until Mossberg actually gives us a more reasonable metric of the hard drive activity stopping as the benchmark, I would ignore what he has to say. Vista is usable much earlier than XP is, and I certainly don't wait for hard drive activity to stop before I launch applications. Vista keeps these figures in its logs. I'd like to see the difference between when Vista thinks that it completed booting and Mossbergs fruity stop watch.
shark47
on Nov 28, 2007
"How does that differ substantially from Thurrott's 5-Paul-Head glowing review of the iPod Video on the "Windows IT Pro Paul Thurrott's Supersite for Windows" during the same timeframe?" You're not serious, are you? On one hand you refer to Paul Thurrott as a Windows apologist when he gives iPods five Paul heads, while on the other, Mossberg, who has nothing but criticism for anything that comes out of Microsoft is unbiased? Smart!
cesjr
on Nov 29, 2007
shark47 - "You're not serious, are you? On one hand you refer to Paul Thurrott as a Windows apologist when he gives iPods five Paul heads, while on the other, Mossberg, who has nothing but criticism for anything that comes out of Microsoft is unbiased? Smart!" You really can't tell that someone is biased from whether they give good or bad reviews generally to a company. It logically doesn't follow, because the alternative explanation is that the reviewer simply liked the products made by that company (based on the quality of the products and the evaluation criteria used by that reviewer). If you want to look for bias, you should first put up your bias alert when someone has a financial interest in a particular view. Kind of like how Paul has a direct financial interest in the continued importance of core MS products (as opposed to competitive offerings from Apple, Google, and open-source). Next, if you want to actually see bias in action, you need to look for a lack of balance. Did the reviewer note features that one product has over another (like Paul noted that the new hard drive zune has wireless sync and an FM radio, while the iPod touch does not), but then not identify features missing from the favored product (like Paul failed to note that the iPod touch has numerous features missing from the new hard drive zune, including awesome web browsing and beg. in Feb. the ability to run 3d party apps?). That's bias - it can be subtle and tricky to identify however. But it's simplistic (and illogical in fact) to say Reviewer A generally gives products from Company B a good review, so Reviewer A must be biased.
shark47
on Nov 29, 2007
"You really can't tell that someone is biased from whether they give good or bad reviews generally to a company. It logically doesn't follow, because the alternative explanation is that the reviewer simply liked the products made by that company (based on the quality of the products and the evaluation criteria used by that reviewer). " Oh OK. In that case, Apple's products suck. Microsoft makes some really good products. Apple makes buggy products that sell only because the design is good. I'm not biased, just because I'm bashing Apple's products, by the way. That's too simplistic a view.
cesjr
on Nov 29, 2007
shark47 - "Oh OK. In that case, Apple's products suck. Microsoft makes some really good products. Apple makes buggy products that sell only because the design is good. I'm not biased, just because I'm bashing Apple's products, by the way. That's too simplistic a view." Umm, I was talking about real journalists and reviewers. Not random windows zealots that post on blogs.
shark47
on Nov 29, 2007
Now I get your point. Apple bashers are not real reviewers, right? The problem with your "analysis" is that it's extremely one-sided. You probably spent hours dissecting Paul's reviews, which you thought showed Apple in poor light. Mossberg will escape your radar as long as his reviews are favorable to Apple.
cesjr
on Nov 30, 2007
Right, random apple haters or windows zealots that post on blogs are haven't done enough to establish themselves as credible (like a real reviewer that has a paid job to review products). The same would be true of an apple zealot that blindly bashes MS products. Blog posters are not reviewers, which is what I was talking about. And I don't spend hours dissecting Paul's reviews. I can usually find the stuff he skips over, glosses over, misrepresents in about 3-5 minutes. Paul spends hours writing all this stuff, but the holes are so glaring and obvious that in a few spare minutes, anyone could see the flaws.
Dipsh t Admin
on Nov 30, 2007
"Not random windows zealots that post on blogs." Likewise, why should anyone listen to random Apple zealots that post on blogs? Anyway, I've seen Paul go all over the place in his reviews over the years. I think we can at least assign Paul some built in bias, since we all see what site this is, right? The news will be a little slanted. However, Mossberg does post on a general publication meant for a wide audience, and his site he is a part of, All Things D, also makes the assumption that he should be relatively unbiased. But, I have been a WSJ reader for over ten years now, and Mossberg has pretty much drunk the Kool-Aid.
cesjr
on Nov 30, 2007
Dipsh t Admin - "But, I have been a WSJ reader for over ten years now, and Mossberg has pretty much drunk the Kool-Aid." Care to back that up, with more than just "he always gives could reviews to apple products"? How about explaining where he was not only wrong, but gave an unbalanced review (showing bias). "Likewise, why should anyone listen to random Apple zealots that post on blogs?" I wasn't arguing nobody should listen to windows zealots on this site. So you are simply misstating and misrepresenting my argument. My argument was - boy, do I really need to go through this? - (1) you can't tell whether a professional reviewer or published journalist like Paul or Walt is biased based merely on how they rate products (because the products could simply be good or bad) - you need to analyze their reviews for balance or lack thereof and (2) in response to a comment from shark47, I had to clarify (like it needed it) that this argument or statement by me applies to professional reviewers and journalists, not to "random windows zealots that post on blogs"). Got it?
Dipsh t Admin
on Nov 30, 2007
cesjr, if I had time, I could provide the instances, but I simply do not have the time or patience to do so. As I read any review, I am constantly looking for things that might be out of place, and this goes for not only reviews of computer stuff, but reviews of anything else, or really, anything that is in the spoken, written, or visual world. I do this without realizing it. No one has to believe me when I say that I have read Mossbergs columns for quite some time and that I have noticed the bias. It is not just a single instance, it is a culling of reviews over the reviews in my head. So no, I can't back it up, but it is certainly something that I believe to be true, based on the years of experience I have had. And I got it, vis-a-vis professional reviewers. What I was trying to point out, and poorly I must admit, that why should anyone on this blog listen to your pontification on spotting bias in reviews, when you are biased towards Apple yourself?
cesjr
on Nov 30, 2007
Dipsh t Admin, "why should anyone on this blog listen to your pontification on spotting bias in reviews, when you are biased towards Apple yourself" Nobody has to read my posts, but if someone responds to my posts, then I may respond to them. You apparently "know" Walt is biased, but yet you continue to read his pieces. I know Paul is biased (based on my accumulated knowledge, like yours of Walt's pieces), but I still read Paul's posts and respond when I see a hole or problem. I do this because it's fun and easy, there's so many holes in Paul's pieces. Don't read my posts if you don't want to. And while you're certainly free to say Walt's biased without citing any evidence, don't expect everyone to accept what you're saying without explanation. Anyways, of course Walt is biased to some degree, everyone is. Again, go read some of my earlier posts. My main issue is with Paul saying Walt's biased. Pot calling the kettle black? Yea, about 100x yea.
cesjr
on Nov 30, 2007
Another thing - about Walt. It's not so much that he's in love with Apple. He's in love with ease of use, and hates hard to use products. He sees it as his mission to promote ease of use. Guess what, that's what apple does best. So it's really not too big of a surprise Walt likes Apple products. Then, as I noted above, you get the "Grade A" student issue. Once a teacher has a grade A student, even their C papers end up with a B. This is just human nature.
Dipsh t Admin
on Nov 30, 2007
As an aside, I no longer do read Mossbergs reviews like I used to. Yes, I will glance the headlines, and just see what the FUD he is trying to spread, but I gave up reading him. I'm only doing a very quick find of Mossberg bias, so don't use these as the be and end all of why I think Mossberg is biased. But these are just some examples that I can easily pick up to try and prove the point somewhat. http://ptech.allthingsd.com/20071018/some-basic-features-you-should-dema... "Your other option is to shun the Windows dilemma and buy a Macintosh. I regard the Mac operating system as superior to Windows" http://ptech.allthingsd.com/20070419/new-pc-hassles/ "Or you could buy a Mac instead. I still believe the best desktop computer on the market for mainstream, nontechnical consumers is the Apple iMac. It has gorgeous hardware and superior built-in software" http://ptech.allthingsd.com/20070111/blackjack-treo-iphone/ The iPhone wasn't even going to be out for a while, and he's proclaiming in so many words that it is better, as a smartphone, which as we know, the iPhone is not even a smartphone. http://ptech.allthingsd.com/20060511/apple-model-beats-pc/ Here he takes an entire column to basically say how great Apple is. http://ptech.allthingsd.com/20070607/youre-using-itunes-but-are-you-miss... Here's his weird talk about Bonjour, as if it was something that an average user would really care about. Not meant to be representative, and I don't feel like paging through Mossbergs Mailbox.
DRWAM
on Nov 30, 2007
He obviously likes Apple products better, but I do not think that he directly or indirectly benefits financially from the column. If he owns stock in a company, ethically, he should disclose that fact.
cesjr
on Nov 30, 2007
Dipsh t Admin , Wow - basically, your view is he's given good reviews to apple products, and says the mac is better for non-technical users, so he must be biased. Just wow. He might be wrong, you might disagree with him. But you have not even remotely come close to identifying a SINGLE thing suggesting a lack of balance or bias in his reviews. YOU FAILED, try again.
shark47
on Dec 1, 2007
"cesjr", all right. Mossberg cannot be unbiased as long as he's not criticizing Apple. I agree with you wholeheartedly. Are you happy now? I'm not sure if you're bonch, who used to post on Windows IT Pro, but you sure do sound a lot like him. Don't ask me for reasons. You won't get any.
shark47
on Dec 1, 2007
"Mossberg cannot be unbiased as long as he's not criticizing Apple" That should've read: "Mossberg cannot be biased as long as he's not criticizing Apple." Anyway, I don't know if Mossberg has a financial incentive to praise everything Apple. I don't think so. However, he does get to test products a few days before they're released to other reviewers. (He was the first person to review the iPhone, I think.) I think that's incentive enough. Considering what was at stake, Apple wouldn't have done that unless it was confident of receiving a good review.
DRWAM
on Dec 1, 2007
Many companies got products before and after they were rolled out and the providing companies often select who is to review. Engadget got an iPhone, probably for free, but the iPhone needs a contract to use it so that is probably a bad example as Apple would need to pick up the tab, otherwise the reviewer is stuck with an expensive wireless phone contract. Anyway. that is a good example of how bias can be verified. But this is not really why I am back to post. My friend with the dual monitor setup issue finally found the problem. It was a faulty [Viewsonic] monitor. It was not Vista [although he claimed that the nVidia driver/Vista relationship was difficult to unite for dual monitors, but probably nVidia's doing]. So I am off the hook for recommending CyberpowerPC, who solved the problem. Also, he is pleased that he learned so much about Vista during the experience. Paul, I am going to buy him your book, which will get me off the hook in the future as we all eventually upgrade to Vista. I guess that I better get a copy for myself as well. Thank you all for your input [and entertainment]. Doc
shark47
on Dec 1, 2007
@Doc, Yes, a lot of companies give review units of their products to various reviewers. However, when lotsa constantly points out that Paul's reviews are biased because he has to be in the good books of Microsoft and then goes on to defend Mossberg, it reeks of hypocrisy. In fact, unlike Mossberg, who got the iPhone a couple of weeks before any other reviewers did, Paul got his Zune from Microsoft only a day or two before the launch (and he didn't even get the one everyone was raving about). Yes, there is an incentive for Paul to be in Microsoft's good books, but there's an even greater incentive for Mossberg to please Apple. Apple is not the most forgiving company in the world.
Dipsh t Admin
on Dec 3, 2007
cesjr, if you read what I stated, that was such a quick and dirty view, not meant to be comprehensive. I didn't have the time or the want quite frankly to comb over old Mossberg articles looking for bias. Many times with these types of things, it is the little things that show bias, not the big things. I only showed the big things, so forgive me for not being as thorough as possible, but I do have a life outside of blogs. I disagree that these posts did not show at least something. Remember that many of these comments were made while reviewing non-Apple products. He certainly likes Apple products a lot, and it would seem to me that may cloud his judgment somewhat. Don't you think? Had he, or another reviewer said just the opposite, would you feel that they were still unbiased? We already know the answer to that. And shark47 is pointing out, this is exactly what I have said before. Mossberg does have an incentive, even though he is pretty on the level with his financial interests, which I am not calling in to question. But it is a matter of access. Access is certainly something that a journalist wants and needs, and he has it with Apple. Remember that Mossberg and Pogue were two of the biggest names on the A-List that got the iPhone weeks before others. Apple PR is certainly not stupid, and they knew that they will get a favorable review.
cesjr
on Dec 3, 2007
Guess what guys, Mossberg gives most apple products good reviews because he thinks the products are good, better than the alternatives for average users (in most instances). It's really not any more complicated or sinister than that. He's not a shill or an apple fanboy. For what's it worth, I don't think Paul is a shill either. I just think he's wrong a lot of the time. And I think it's more productive to point out specifically where and why Paul is wrong, so people can debate and discuss that, rather than just making sweeping accusations of bias without any real support.
Shelby_GT
on Dec 3, 2007
What ED says about Skype is number 1 in my book! I had a very bad issue with Skype and had to reinstall my OS to be rid of it completely! I'll never use Skype again with Vista... As for the other trash I call it. 3rd party firewalls are number #2. They do nothing at all except give you less security and destroy the foundation for what is in the firewall that came with Vista. Editing rules and policies is the best firewall anyone could have. Unless your not computer savy to the mark. Which most users are not. They will buy anything that makes it easy. But the truth of the matter is... it does not do anything more than take down the real defenses you really need. Such as UAC and the Defender prophecy I call it. Prophecy meaning they can not see the future why this program is not just an add in for Vista [feature]. But is made directly into the OS itself for how it will operate correctly and in correctly without it being used. Thus you have people playing god with their OS and security for the OS. End results are - slow running- hard starting - and problems with most any software they use. Thus they blame the OS and not the user input for adding the wrong software for security. And/or for hardware to say the least. I've mastered mine here and my system runs to the mark. I use everything as it should and keep this machine in top shape 24/7. I never have problems with security. Plus I also keep 2 other user acctsa with encrypted logins so as the admin never gets to be used except by the admin. You say Vista is slow! Well yours is... mine is faster than any XP or Mac anywhere on the planet earth! SGT

Please or Register to post comments.

Related Articles

IT/Dev Connections

Las Vegas
September 30th - October 4th

Paul ThurottYou'll have the opportunity to experience:
• 120 Technical
Sessions
• Networking with Peers
• Expert Speakers


Come See Paul Thurrott & Mary Jo Foley in Person!

Register Now

Office 365 InfoCenter

Get the latest insight and info from Paul

Read Now!

What I Use
Apr. 18, 2013
Article

What I Use: On the Road 21

Every so often, I publish an updated version of my “What I Use” document, which details the technology products and services I actually use day-to-day. Since I’m currently on my third business trip in five weeks, this is perhaps an ideal time to discuss the technology products I rely on when I travel and a few related points....More
Mar. 6, 2013
Article

What I Use: March 2013 33

Lots of changes since November, including a new PC-based home server running Windows 8, several new smart phones, new PCs and tablets, new cloud backup, Office 365 Home Premium and a nice doubling of my Internet speeds courtesy of Verizon FIOS....More
WinSuperSite.com
Related Penton Sites
Copyright © 2013 Penton Media, Inc