Are the Slate editors so insipid and technically incompetent that they can't discern between the writings of real tech writers like Pogue & Mossberg and the utter tripe that issues forth from Mr. Manjoo time and time and time again?

Are you disagreeing with specific aspects of what he says or just the way he says it? Seeing as all you do is offer a critique of his style compared to other writers who I personally have never heard of at least by name, leaves me little choice but to think you're just whining about how he writes, which isn't really the point so much as imparting information itself, not jsut making it sound pretty.

What, exactly, is wrong with Manjoo's style? Or his selection of topics? Or what he has to say?

Are you angry because he said that Windows 7 is better than Mac OS X? Can't have that, now can we? After all, it's tech heresy. Pity that it's also true.

opus512:

Are you disagreeing with specific aspects of what he says or just the way he says it?

Speaking personally, I think he writes fine. It's what he says that I have the issue with. 

For instance, he points out Libraries, which groups certain documents together- all your photos here, all your documents there, etc. But what Manjoo fails to point out in the midst of the lovefest, is the downside to such a system. It destroys the folder structure. And some people actually use that structure to organize their files.

So why did Microsoft do this then? Because they saw what many non-technical users were doing. I’m sure you’ve seen it yourself. They place everything on the desktop. Downloaded installers, documents, shortcuts, pictures. All on the desktop. And that’s cluttered. So Microsoft “helpfully” implements a feature to work around it, screwing a large portion of its users in the process.

Did Manjoo discuss this? Did he even mention it as a potential problem? No, he simply regurgitated the Microsoft line like the most brainless Windows 7 party host.

I don’t know about others, but that’s my problem with Manjoo. No depth. No attempt to look beyond the surface, even a little. His columns are not so much editorials as they are a cull from various press releases.

It doesn't destroy the folder structure. You can continue to use folders just as in previous versions of Windows if you like; ignore libraries altogether, the OS will let you. That's why I didn't mention it. Have you used Win 7?

Not to pile on, but I have asked myself the almost the same question: what does Farhad Manjoo know that makes him interesting as a tech columnist? To me, there is nothing. He hasn't shown any insight in the pieces I've read. He's often superficial and misleading regarding technology issues: his comparison of Win7 and Snow Leopard here is a good example. The former is all about the user interface; the latter is all about internals. Not that I want to see a discourse on memory protection and thread management on Slate, but as a tech columnist, please show me you know enough about operating systems to be taken seriously. It might be insightful, and appropriate to Slate, to explain that choosing an OS is about more than differences, sometimes subtle differences, in the user interface.

His appeal must be his writing style and attempts at trendiness. (Rachel Weisz? Really?)

I've stopped reading Technology on Slate, except for random excursions like this one.

I think you're mistaken if you believe that the majority of Mac users pick their system for "internals." I'm covering what I believe most readers care about in the OS. Could I be wrong about what they care about? Sure. But you can, too. As long as the "internals" get the job done, I think they care little about why or how. If you don't like the writing or the "attempts at trendiness" (yeah, really), that's perfectly alright. Not only are you allowed to skip it, you can also come in here and say why.

I don't believe you read what I wrote: the comparison of Win7 to Snow Leopard is misleading because of the nature of the upgrades. Do you disagree?

Yes, I do. Each represents the latest version of the respective OS. Should I have compared Win 7 to Leopard? To the extent that people are deciding between the two, I'm trying to help them by describing the differences (on the factors I suspect they'll care about) between OSes that are available to them today. What's your beef with that?

I don't have a beef. I believe that is a rude interjection. I looked back to see if I had been rude. I was challenging you, but I don't think I was rude. If you believe I was, please tell me. Perhaps you took offense at my "trendiness" remark. Perhaps the difference is explained there: Rachel Weisz doesn't do anything for me; I would have gone with Michelle Pfeiffer, even today.

I posted essentially as a probe, to see if there possibly was some expertise you had on the technology side that would be interesting to me. Some of your predecessors have replied thoughtfully. You didn't, or perhaps you are really lacking in an understanding of the technologies. You also don't seem to really be looking at explaining technology to your audience, or even the larger issues associated with technologies in the commercial environment. You see to be providing some mix of buying or lifestyle advice. I'd suggest to you, or perhaps to your editor, that your column is mis-labeled.

You don't need to reply with another childish interjection. I'll be moving on.

Sorry if I was rude, but now you're changing the subject to my alleged childishness rather than alleged ignorance. You argued that I mislead the audience by comparing Win7 to Snow Leopard, and that by doing so I demonstrated a lack of understanding about technology. That seems odd to me; how is it misleading to compare Win 7 to Snow Leopard, which are the two latest versions of their respective OSes?

I agree with Farhad that the only logical thing to do is compare the latest versions. I think the problem with the piece is that it doesn't follow through on what it promises. The premise of the piece is that windows is the best OS on the market. I'm a mac user and I know that the premise is blatantly false, but I came to hear a takedown, so bring it. This is a general interest magazine; I come to be informed and entertained. Unfortunately, instead, I'm going to be bored. Because you almost immediately hedge to saying that Redmond blood, sweat, and tears "edge out" the mac "in several important ways." Well, hopefully, right? Not exactly a takedown, is it? I doubt any reasonable person thought that any competitive company would release a product that didn't have any advantages or innovative features. But next is where you really start hedging. Because you then don't put anything behind the claim that these features "edge out" the mac anyway! The comparison that your entire article is building to apparently amounts to the nearly infinitesimal: 1) an entirely conclusory claim that the libraries feature is "more customizable" (you leave me wondering how); 2) rolling over vs. clicking on the taskbar; and 3) an apparent plethora of keyboard shortcuts. Truly, seeing a full window instead of an icon when alt-tabbing sounds great for many people I'm sure. But when you had the opportunity to bring the dominant features to back up the claim that you said you were going to make, the differences you have to bring me are undoubtably small. Which you go on to agree with in the first sentence of the next paragraph! I can't imagine how anyone who reads this piece cannot end up disappointed, unless, of course, he or she were unaware that alt-tabbing in windows 7 now shows a full window.

You apparently came looking for a takedown; I didn't promise one, and I don't know why you're saying I did.

I said Win 7 "edges out" Snow Leopard. "Edges out" means just beats out, it doesn't suggest a "takedown." As I acknowledged, the ways in which Win 7 surpasses Snow Leopard are small and in many cases matters of taste. (Libraries is more customizable than Smart Folders because you can, among other things, restrict it to searching certain areas of your computer, or just a select few folders, which is useful for certain applications.)

The real win here, as I pointed out, is that Windows users now have a world-class OS. If you were looking for me to say that Win 7 will make your morning coffee, sure, you won't be pleased. But for users stuck using an 8-year-old OS, an upgrade that puts their machines on par with the Mac is not nothing.

...skin-Farhad-Manjoo-alive-fe­st?

Really. It's inevitable, no matter what the guy writes.

bgflores:

Are the Slate editors so insipid and technically incompetent that they can't discern between the writings of real tech writers like Pogue & Mossberg and the utter tripe that issues forth from Mr. Manjoo time and time and time again?

You're not going to convince Slate's editors of anything like that, smug jackass. Tech writers like Pogue & Mossberg, wah, wah, wah. Step away from the pizza and get out of the basement.

Farhad Manjoo writes for Slate. His editors aren't going to fire him because some smart techies don't like him. Get used to it.

I was expecting a takedown when the title of the piece is "Windows 7 is the best operating system on the market." But that wasn't what was in the article. It's not like it would be such a bad thing to stretch the truth a bit to say that it dominates the mac. At least that would be an argument, instead of this limp, eh, it's a matter of taste observation. I can get that point of view from basically anyone.