He did evaluate it. Didn't you read about the part where he saw no benefit? It implies that he did look for benefits.
"I see no benefit" is not the same as "I tried it and found it not to offer me value." The former, common here on/., is equivolent to "I couldn't see anything in the rumors that would possibly even make me think of looking at a screen hooked to a computer running Vista." In other words, MS is bad.
Furthermore, if XP is doing the job on his current hardware why should he switch?
Because it will soonly likely come pre-installed on new system purchases? I don't think I ever said everyone should upgrade immedately, I was only responding to the absurd "Vista will NEVER be in use in MY business!!!!"
You claim security is the reason, but if XP is so unsecured what makes you think the new system will fare better? Yes they are hyping security, and it probably is more secure, but Microsoft is a company with a track record and it is impossible to look through an entire system to check to see if it secure independently. Thus the only real way to judge security is by reputation and from the real world experiences of others.
Hmm, you seem to contradict yourself. You say its probably no more secure, then say it probably is more secure. Typical of the fanboys here. I never said XP was unsecure, I said Vista has better security. While evaluating MS track record for business, you may want to only consider the business targeted OSes, which would be Windows NT. Also, you may want to consider that Win2k3 server (the first OS since MS' security push) has been very secure. Security with XP has been improving steadily since then as well. Take too much stock in reputation, and you'll quickly rule out vendors that DID make a turnaround.
One major part of security in the real world is knowing your own plan and procedures. You are not allowed to know what is going on inside a Windows machine. You have to take MS at their word and that alone is a strike against security.
More FUD, as usual. You can have plans and procedures, and open or closed source, there are going to be vunerabilities in any OS. For Linux you have to assume someone even bothered looking at the code in any one system, which I don't think its as likely as you would like.
Well, genius, I've evaluated it and I'm ruling it out.
Well dumbass, you are not the person I responded to, are you? The OP gave not indication that any such evaluation took place, either.
You do realize that not every business is in the business of building apps, right? What if I buy my apps off the shelf?
Hmm, I didn't think I needed to spell it out, but here goes. If its faster (and thus cheaper) for me to build an application, then you'll get a cheaper application to buy (or one with more features than if I didn't choose WPF).
As I've said, tightened security is a biggy. There are also more group policies so that companies can more fine grain their security. The new explorer is much easier to navigate. Shadow copy is also a very helpful feature.
Only a month? I'd like to hear about your trial much later, because honestly I tried running Linux on the desktop from 2002 to 2006. After many small frustrations trying to get it setup just the way I wanted to in my network, I moved back to Windows. I also moved my server to Windows, which had been Linux since 1999.
I see SP1 as both an easy reference to WHEN Vista could be considered for business use, and the deadline that companies have to institute working drivers and application patches for home users.
When SP1 comes out is entirely arbitrary. It could come out two weeks from now.. and you'd suddenly claim "ok, NOW its the vendors fault"? Considering that developers and vendors could have started implementing appropriate testing and patches BEFORE Vista was RTMed, I see no reason that they should not have completed such testing and patches.
SP1 will undoubtedly break some 3rd party apps and drivers when it is released. I see no point in businesses testing their core vital apps in a pre-SP1 Vista environment.
You have some evidence for this? Perhaps you're not aware, but most XPSP2 problems were around the introduction of the firewall. Since then, MS says it will not release new functionality via service packs anymore. I've never had a problem keeping all the latest updates, nor has any company I worked for.
Also, why do you not think that SP2 has any possiblity of breaking anything? If I follow your logic, there is never a time to update any OS.
As far as home users, the lack of working and/or fully functional drivers is a detriment to both Vista and the individual companies. SP1 is a good deadline. If HP, Lexmark, Canon, whoever can't get their devices working fully on Vista by then, it is time to look for a new device.
I can see it being a detriment to vendors, but why Vista? Major vendors have had plenty of time to get their drivers working. Perhaps if they are not, they should not really be in business because they can't build a proper product.
Everything a doctor does it by a charge code that they can give to the insurance company. If your surgery goes wrong, you suddenly have more charge codes (or maybe more time assigned to an hourly code). When you go in for surgery, you'll likely find someone else to give recommendations and do what you can to check that doctors history, because skill is very important there. But when you're having a physical, getting a few stitches, or having some blood work done, that's entirely different.
Exactly, that's why its not feasible to list charges for a surgery, you simply don't know the complications that may arrise. As far as a physical or blood work, that can be obtained by simply asking. I've never not been able to find out up front the price of those services.
"You get what you pay for" is absolutely true, but the reverse, "if you pay more, you'll get something better" doesn't always hold true. Think of designer clothes, high quality no-name brands, and the thrift store. Sometimes you are happy to pay more, but other times you're just paying for a name.
More and more I'm finding that the reverse actually is true. I sometimes get my wife clothes from Cache, and besides being stylish, the clothes fit better and last much, much longer. Compare to the "same" top at Walmart... well she wore a Walmart $5 shirt once, washed it, and it came out of the washer with a few large holes in it.
Only with doctors, you're paying for 1 dead beat, 3 people with really stingy insurance, and a ridiculous malpractice insurance premium when the bill comes to $750 for a 10 minute physical.
The same claims can be said about anything; when you buy a TV, your paying for the employees that stole other electronics from the store, gas prices, and rebate scammers.
The problem is that most chronically ill people are sick through no fault of their own.... The 9 year old kid with brain cancer... your mom with rheumatoid arthritis... your college roommate with Crohn's disease... nothing they did (or didn't do) created or contributed to their current condition. It is unfair to blame the sick for wanting access to health care.. after all, that IS what it is all about. Health care is about treating the sick, not the healthy. If the sick don't have access to health care, then why have health care available at all?
At that point you need to stop and think; do we pull all of our resources to help these people? At what point do you simply accept that you will have pain or that you are going to die? It sucks, but society would collaspe if all effort was focused soley on treating the sick.
Why then is it ok for a doctor to provide care but claim they don't know how much a service costs, and then after the fact send some bill that you can't negotiate or decline?
Perhaps because there may be complications, too many to enumerate, and surgery on you may be easier than surgery on me?
Give me all the information up front, and if one doctor costs too much, I'll find someone that is cheaper.
So you'd feel comfortable having your surgery at Wal*Mart? Ignore "you get what you pay for" at your own risk.
Yes you can exclude pre-existing conditions. The theory is that one person may cause costs to rise astronomically. Imagine a cancer patient joining your group. Should everyone pay triple the premium now because someone that has cancer (not just a risk of it) joined?
I'm not sure why you think COBRA helps; it allows you to pay the monthly premium at 100%, not only the portion you paid. You get COBRA if you quit BTW, and I know from experience that if you want COBRA, prepair to spend $800 / month.
The other way to restore fairness is inhumane or even barbaric: Deny emergency services outright to people who can afford to pay insurance but choose not to. This means letting people suffer and die. It's also poor economic policy if the person is likely to recover and continue contributing to the economy.
It seems poorer economic policy to bring more people closer to the poverty level by taxing everyone for healthcare. Its also not as black and white as you see it.
Should the 500lbs people be free from suffering and kept alive at any expense, even though its their own fault? Should we really be concerned if someone is suffering because they blew off their hand with an M80? How about dumb college kids that binge drink? Or people that ride bikes when the roads are covered in ice and snow?
I'm sorry, but I don't think we should be stopping stupid people from suffering the consequences of their own poor judgement. All it does is drag down more people to the lowest levels.
So not only do you get a load of "better security" hype (that you get with every windows release)
Its not possible to improving things? I hope not, our economy seems to depend on people buying newer versions of the same products.
you also getting a lot of annoying wack-a-mole pop ups when you're trying to work! That'll help those employees become more efficient good job! Of course you then go on to blame all developers working on windows programs which is typical windows user style to never blame the operating system.
Well it is the fault of the application developers. Lots of programs still store state data in Program Files, they want to write to %windir%, keep data they don't need to in the registry, etc. FWIW, I am a software engineer, and I've read the best practices, but for some reasons many shops think its just fine to ignore them and put whatever they want where ever they want it.. and now that Vista actually throws up blocks when this happens, you get apps that annoy their users.
Also FWIW, I installed Vista, and the apps I do have installed seem to work just fine. The only time UAC comes into play is when I'm attempting to do system administrator features.
The blame does belong on the developers, because they are the ones not following BP. At least I'm not blaming the user which is what many in the Linux crowd do.
Well at least with MS they provide betas and (to certain shops) alphas to vendors so that they can work on driver changes and be ready when Vista ships. Developers also have tons of Best practices to follow.
Is there any one entity setting such standards for Linux? As far as Linux driver development goes, it seems the kernel is constantly changing its driver API.. again, at least with MS the API stablizes and remains that way, until the next major version.
Wow, well good luck with your business. You've ruled it out without even evaluating it. Personally I think the tightened security alone is worth the upgrade. Now application developers will be forced to follow best practices, unless they want thier app triggering UAC constantly.
I think building apps for Vista will also be much simplier and cheaper because of WPF.
Unfortunately your logic leads you to a path where pretty much anything is moral, all you need to do is find the correct context. That context may only exist in one person's mind.
Many things are labeled moral or immoral which really are not appropriate to be categorized that way. To some, sex before marriage is immoral. I don't subscribe to listing those kinds of things as moral or immoral. However, attempting to gain by harming others is pretty universally considered morally wrong, just as murder is.
In the case of the company, its only the top people that decide if the company is acting morally or not. Others working there do not have any control over the larger picture, and in many cases don't even know what their company might be doing.
You will not die if you can't afford to pay for a car. You will not die if you can't afford to pay your travel costs. You will die if you can't afford to eat. You may die if you get sick and don't have health insurance. THerefore it's approaching the same class as food. Lack of health insurance also creates an underclass. If you can't afford to drive you move to somplace where public transit is available. If you can't afford to pay for your daughter's big operation tomorrow, what do you do but go bankrupt?
Tough. Its your own fault if you're poor, it really is. There are people out there that simply choose to be stupid and leech off the rest of us. No one has a right to live off of other's backs.
Riddle me this, how is a lifestyle responsible for someone getting leukemia? It sounds to me like you think they have a choice in the matter. Does someone have a choice in the expression of a genetic disorder?
There ARE plenty of diseases that ARE controllable by lifestyle, the most threatening one today is obesity. While leukemia sucks, why should I have to have everything I work for taken to pay for someone else's treatment? Its a fatal disease, it sucks, but that doesn't mean I should be force to pay for its treatment. Death is a part of life, and we as a society need to accept that.
Also, if you pay taxes you would be paying for the effects of your lifestyle, and everyone else's. But everyone else would be paying for the effects of your own. It's this socialist idea of sharing the cost amongst everyone.
I'll pay for the effects of mine. If I can't, then I guess I don't get treatment, but I won't drag down everyone else because of my problems.
On the other hand medical costs can vary widely - several orders of magnitude - and often due to reasons entirely beyond the indivudual's control.
Bullshit. Many of the reasons people end up in the hospital ARE directly under an individuals control. What they eat, how much they exercise, holding a lit M80 in your hand, driving while reading a book, walking into a street without looking, not wearing a seatbelt (or in some cases wearing one) are all factors.
Quite frankly, the biggest grower of healthcare costs is being overweight: heart disease, diabetes, blood clots, sleep apnea, cancer. The list goes on an on. Weight IS something directly under your own control, yet obesety rates are raising at an incrediably fast rate.
How about this: if you didn't take resonable measures to avoid injury or sickness, you get to foot the bill. I already don't want to pay for the fat white trash buying new trucks off of my tax money already, and now people expect me to pay their healthcare? No thanks.
I think you missed my point -- companies don't have morality. And acting within the moral code of corporate management, the morally correct action is that which maximizes profit without exposing the company to undue risk.
I don't buy that line of bullshit. Companies are run by people, and the 'moral action is the profitable one' is just excusing amoral people for their deeds.
Its funny, because your insurance example is already what happens. They DO charge more for living in a flood plain. Health insurance is not allowed to charge more for higher risk people (fat, smokers, etc), which is unfortunate.
However, even with credit reporting, most insurance still functions as you describe. They have just another "reason" to arbitrarly raise your rate.
As far as loans go, credit cards don't seem to be working out too well for consumers. I think we'd be better off without them all together as well. Loans for houses and cars are less risky, because you can simply repo the house or car should the consumer default.
Wouldn't a better solution simply be to shut down the credit reporting agencies? They seem to do more harm than good, and that seems a ligit reason to close them down for good. It would stop ID theft immediately.
Why is that unfortunate?.Net is set to replace the old Win32 API. It suprises you that they want people to move to it, just as they moved to Win32 / Win32S back in 95?
Slashdot Mirror
He did evaluate it. Didn't you read about the part where he saw no benefit? It implies that he did look for benefits.
/., is equivolent to "I couldn't see anything in the rumors that would possibly even make me think of looking at a screen hooked to a computer running Vista." In other words, MS is bad.
"I see no benefit" is not the same as "I tried it and found it not to offer me value." The former, common here on
Furthermore, if XP is doing the job on his current hardware why should he switch?
Because it will soonly likely come pre-installed on new system purchases? I don't think I ever said everyone should upgrade immedately, I was only responding to the absurd "Vista will NEVER be in use in MY business!!!!"
You claim security is the reason, but if XP is so unsecured what makes you think the new system will fare better? Yes they are hyping security, and it probably is more secure, but Microsoft is a company with a track record and it is impossible to look through an entire system to check to see if it secure independently. Thus the only real way to judge security is by reputation and from the real world experiences of others.
Hmm, you seem to contradict yourself. You say its probably no more secure, then say it probably is more secure. Typical of the fanboys here. I never said XP was unsecure, I said Vista has better security. While evaluating MS track record for business, you may want to only consider the business targeted OSes, which would be Windows NT. Also, you may want to consider that Win2k3 server (the first OS since MS' security push) has been very secure. Security with XP has been improving steadily since then as well. Take too much stock in reputation, and you'll quickly rule out vendors that DID make a turnaround.
One major part of security in the real world is knowing your own plan and procedures. You are not allowed to know what is going on inside a Windows machine. You have to take MS at their word and that alone is a strike against security.
More FUD, as usual. You can have plans and procedures, and open or closed source, there are going to be vunerabilities in any OS. For Linux you have to assume someone even bothered looking at the code in any one system, which I don't think its as likely as you would like.
Well, genius, I've evaluated it and I'm ruling it out.
Well dumbass, you are not the person I responded to, are you? The OP gave not indication that any such evaluation took place, either.
You do realize that not every business is in the business of building apps, right? What if I buy my apps off the shelf?
Hmm, I didn't think I needed to spell it out, but here goes. If its faster (and thus cheaper) for me to build an application, then you'll get a cheaper application to buy (or one with more features than if I didn't choose WPF).
As I've said, tightened security is a biggy. There are also more group policies so that companies can more fine grain their security. The new explorer is much easier to navigate. Shadow copy is also a very helpful feature.
Only a month? I'd like to hear about your trial much later, because honestly I tried running Linux on the desktop from 2002 to 2006. After many small frustrations trying to get it setup just the way I wanted to in my network, I moved back to Windows. I also moved my server to Windows, which had been Linux since 1999.
I see SP1 as both an easy reference to WHEN Vista could be considered for business use, and the deadline that companies have to institute working drivers and application patches for home users.
When SP1 comes out is entirely arbitrary. It could come out two weeks from now.. and you'd suddenly claim "ok, NOW its the vendors fault"? Considering that developers and vendors could have started implementing appropriate testing and patches BEFORE Vista was RTMed, I see no reason that they should not have completed such testing and patches.
SP1 will undoubtedly break some 3rd party apps and drivers when it is released. I see no point in businesses testing their core vital apps in a pre-SP1 Vista environment.
You have some evidence for this? Perhaps you're not aware, but most XPSP2 problems were around the introduction of the firewall. Since then, MS says it will not release new functionality via service packs anymore. I've never had a problem keeping all the latest updates, nor has any company I worked for.
Also, why do you not think that SP2 has any possiblity of breaking anything? If I follow your logic, there is never a time to update any OS.
As far as home users, the lack of working and/or fully functional drivers is a detriment to both Vista and the individual companies. SP1 is a good deadline. If HP, Lexmark, Canon, whoever can't get their devices working fully on Vista by then, it is time to look for a new device.
I can see it being a detriment to vendors, but why Vista? Major vendors have had plenty of time to get their drivers working. Perhaps if they are not, they should not really be in business because they can't build a proper product.
Everything a doctor does it by a charge code that they can give to the insurance company. If your surgery goes wrong, you suddenly have more charge codes (or maybe more time assigned to an hourly code). When you go in for surgery, you'll likely find someone else to give recommendations and do what you can to check that doctors history, because skill is very important there. But when you're having a physical, getting a few stitches, or having some blood work done, that's entirely different.
Exactly, that's why its not feasible to list charges for a surgery, you simply don't know the complications that may arrise. As far as a physical or blood work, that can be obtained by simply asking. I've never not been able to find out up front the price of those services.
"You get what you pay for" is absolutely true, but the reverse, "if you pay more, you'll get something better" doesn't always hold true. Think of designer clothes, high quality no-name brands, and the thrift store. Sometimes you are happy to pay more, but other times you're just paying for a name.
More and more I'm finding that the reverse actually is true. I sometimes get my wife clothes from Cache, and besides being stylish, the clothes fit better and last much, much longer. Compare to the "same" top at Walmart... well she wore a Walmart $5 shirt once, washed it, and it came out of the washer with a few large holes in it.
Only with doctors, you're paying for 1 dead beat, 3 people with really stingy insurance, and a ridiculous malpractice insurance premium when the bill comes to $750 for a 10 minute physical.
The same claims can be said about anything; when you buy a TV, your paying for the employees that stole other electronics from the store, gas prices, and rebate scammers.
The problem is that most chronically ill people are sick through no fault of their own.... The 9 year old kid with brain cancer... your mom with rheumatoid arthritis... your college roommate with Crohn's disease... nothing they did (or didn't do) created or contributed to their current condition. It is unfair to blame the sick for wanting access to health care.. after all, that IS what it is all about. Health care is about treating the sick, not the healthy. If the sick don't have access to health care, then why have health care available at all?
At that point you need to stop and think; do we pull all of our resources to help these people? At what point do you simply accept that you will have pain or that you are going to die? It sucks, but society would collaspe if all effort was focused soley on treating the sick.
Why then is it ok for a doctor to provide care but claim they don't know how much a service costs, and then after the fact send some bill that you can't negotiate or decline?
Perhaps because there may be complications, too many to enumerate, and surgery on you may be easier than surgery on me?
Give me all the information up front, and if one doctor costs too much, I'll find someone that is cheaper.
So you'd feel comfortable having your surgery at Wal*Mart? Ignore "you get what you pay for" at your own risk.
What would be wrong with not having any more MS or Downs kids born? Seems like that would be a good thing for us as a species.
Yes you can exclude pre-existing conditions. The theory is that one person may cause costs to rise astronomically. Imagine a cancer patient joining your group. Should everyone pay triple the premium now because someone that has cancer (not just a risk of it) joined?
I'm not sure why you think COBRA helps; it allows you to pay the monthly premium at 100%, not only the portion you paid. You get COBRA if you quit BTW, and I know from experience that if you want COBRA, prepair to spend $800 / month.
The other way to restore fairness is inhumane or even barbaric: Deny emergency services outright to people who can afford to pay insurance but choose not to. This means letting people suffer and die. It's also poor economic policy if the person is likely to recover and continue contributing to the economy.
It seems poorer economic policy to bring more people closer to the poverty level by taxing everyone for healthcare. Its also not as black and white as you see it.
Should the 500lbs people be free from suffering and kept alive at any expense, even though its their own fault? Should we really be concerned if someone is suffering because they blew off their hand with an M80? How about dumb college kids that binge drink? Or people that ride bikes when the roads are covered in ice and snow?
I'm sorry, but I don't think we should be stopping stupid people from suffering the consequences of their own poor judgement. All it does is drag down more people to the lowest levels.
So not only do you get a load of "better security" hype (that you get with every windows release)
Its not possible to improving things? I hope not, our economy seems to depend on people buying newer versions of the same products.
you also getting a lot of annoying wack-a-mole pop ups when you're trying to work! That'll help those employees become more efficient good job! Of course you then go on to blame all developers working on windows programs which is typical windows user style to never blame the operating system.
Well it is the fault of the application developers. Lots of programs still store state data in Program Files, they want to write to %windir%, keep data they don't need to in the registry, etc. FWIW, I am a software engineer, and I've read the best practices, but for some reasons many shops think its just fine to ignore them and put whatever they want where ever they want it.. and now that Vista actually throws up blocks when this happens, you get apps that annoy their users.
Also FWIW, I installed Vista, and the apps I do have installed seem to work just fine. The only time UAC comes into play is when I'm attempting to do system administrator features.
The blame does belong on the developers, because they are the ones not following BP. At least I'm not blaming the user which is what many in the Linux crowd do.
Well at least with MS they provide betas and (to certain shops) alphas to vendors so that they can work on driver changes and be ready when Vista ships. Developers also have tons of Best practices to follow.
Is there any one entity setting such standards for Linux? As far as Linux driver development goes, it seems the kernel is constantly changing its driver API.. again, at least with MS the API stablizes and remains that way, until the next major version.
It might be possible to do something like this with Linq, although I haven't looked at that much yet.
My question is, when will Sun rip off formal property definitions? Or did they already and I missed it?
Hmm, I wonder if you could do this using Linq in .Net? That's basically just syntatic sugar too.
Wow, well good luck with your business. You've ruled it out without even evaluating it. Personally I think the tightened security alone is worth the upgrade. Now application developers will be forced to follow best practices, unless they want thier app triggering UAC constantly.
I think building apps for Vista will also be much simplier and cheaper because of WPF.
Drivers are the responsiblity of the vendor, so are applications.
What exactly are the changes that you saw in SP1 that would fix either of those issues?
Unfortunately your logic leads you to a path where pretty much anything is moral, all you need to do is find the correct context. That context may only exist in one person's mind.
Many things are labeled moral or immoral which really are not appropriate to be categorized that way. To some, sex before marriage is immoral. I don't subscribe to listing those kinds of things as moral or immoral. However, attempting to gain by harming others is pretty universally considered morally wrong, just as murder is.
In the case of the company, its only the top people that decide if the company is acting morally or not. Others working there do not have any control over the larger picture, and in many cases don't even know what their company might be doing.
I would disagree with you. IE7 has been stable since I first installed it, as has Vista. No crashes, no weirdness.
What exactly are your "big reasons" for not upgrading?
You will not die if you can't afford to pay for a car. You will not die if you can't afford to pay your travel costs. You will die if you can't afford to eat. You may die if you get sick and don't have health insurance. THerefore it's approaching the same class as food. Lack of health insurance also creates an underclass. If you can't afford to drive you move to somplace where public transit is available. If you can't afford to pay for your daughter's big operation tomorrow, what do you do but go bankrupt?
Tough. Its your own fault if you're poor, it really is. There are people out there that simply choose to be stupid and leech off the rest of us. No one has a right to live off of other's backs.
Riddle me this, how is a lifestyle responsible for someone getting leukemia? It sounds to me like you think they have a choice in the matter. Does someone have a choice in the expression of a genetic disorder?
There ARE plenty of diseases that ARE controllable by lifestyle, the most threatening one today is obesity. While leukemia sucks, why should I have to have everything I work for taken to pay for someone else's treatment? Its a fatal disease, it sucks, but that doesn't mean I should be force to pay for its treatment. Death is a part of life, and we as a society need to accept that.
Also, if you pay taxes you would be paying for the effects of your lifestyle, and everyone else's. But everyone else would be paying for the effects of your own. It's this socialist idea of sharing the cost amongst everyone.
I'll pay for the effects of mine. If I can't, then I guess I don't get treatment, but I won't drag down everyone else because of my problems.
On the other hand medical costs can vary widely - several orders of magnitude - and often due to reasons entirely beyond the indivudual's control.
Bullshit. Many of the reasons people end up in the hospital ARE directly under an individuals control. What they eat, how much they exercise, holding a lit M80 in your hand, driving while reading a book, walking into a street without looking, not wearing a seatbelt (or in some cases wearing one) are all factors.
Quite frankly, the biggest grower of healthcare costs is being overweight: heart disease, diabetes, blood clots, sleep apnea, cancer. The list goes on an on. Weight IS something directly under your own control, yet obesety rates are raising at an incrediably fast rate.
How about this: if you didn't take resonable measures to avoid injury or sickness, you get to foot the bill. I already don't want to pay for the fat white trash buying new trucks off of my tax money already, and now people expect me to pay their healthcare? No thanks.
I think you missed my point -- companies don't have morality. And acting within the moral code of corporate management, the morally correct action is that which maximizes profit without exposing the company to undue risk.
I don't buy that line of bullshit. Companies are run by people, and the 'moral action is the profitable one' is just excusing amoral people for their deeds.
Its funny, because your insurance example is already what happens. They DO charge more for living in a flood plain. Health insurance is not allowed to charge more for higher risk people (fat, smokers, etc), which is unfortunate.
However, even with credit reporting, most insurance still functions as you describe. They have just another "reason" to arbitrarly raise your rate.
As far as loans go, credit cards don't seem to be working out too well for consumers. I think we'd be better off without them all together as well. Loans for houses and cars are less risky, because you can simply repo the house or car should the consumer default.
Your credit should be frozen BY DEFAULT.
Wouldn't a better solution simply be to shut down the credit reporting agencies? They seem to do more harm than good, and that seems a ligit reason to close them down for good. It would stop ID theft immediately.
Why is that unfortunate? .Net is set to replace the old Win32 API. It suprises you that they want people to move to it, just as they moved to Win32 / Win32S back in 95?