Thursday, June 25, 2009
#
I am a big fan of Windows 7. I have been pretty critical of Windows Vista, considering it a stop gap to an already tardy update to XP. Simply put, Windows 7 is what Vista should have been. So when
Microsoft announced its pricing this morning for the October's release, I was very disappointed.
Pricing for retail upgrade:
- Windows 7 Home Premium: $119.99
- Windows 7 Professional: $199.99
- Windows 7 Ultimate: $219.99
Pricing for retail full:
- Windows 7 Home Premium: $199.99
- Windows 7 Professional: $299.99
- Windows 7 Ultimate: $319.99
While cheaper than Vista's respective pricing, it's kind of lame in light of Apple's Snow Leopard update this September for a more digestible $29. Ina Fried of C|Net news mentions Brad Brooks, Corporate Vice President of Marketing at Microsoft, as saying "
comparing the two upgrades is unfair". Not so, say I. Both include features and updates that one could argue should have been included in the original release of their respective operating systems. Both could have delayed launch until these improvements were implemented (I'm quite sure they were on the road map) but the long time to market would have reflected poorly--on both of them.
Microsoft, because it had already taken five years, several restarts, and many dropped features (
WinFS, I'm looking at you!). Apple, because they enjoy ribbing Microsoft too much for their long development cycles. I at least have respect for Apple labeling their update "focusing on performance, under-the-hood improvements, and user interface refinements" during the WWDC and charging so little for it. Too bad Microsoft didn't do the same.
Maybe it would it be too much of a mea culpa about Vista's failure by selling Windows 7 at a similar price point. At any rate, my enthusiasm has been curbed quite a bit. I know at, say, $50 a license I would upgrade two desktops and a laptop in a snap. Now, I think I'll just wait until a free copy floats my way, or better still, stay with XP and continue a transition to another OS. Another missed opportunity, Microsoft.
Monday, June 22, 2009
#
Despite the modest turn out at Apple and AT&T stores for its release, looks like the iPhone 3GS is just as hot as last year's model,
selling over one million units over the weekend.
I too picked one up and it didn't fail to impress. Speed has definitely been on tap as I instantly noticed that it loaded apps in seconds that typically took several seconds to load. The speed here seems a bit clichéd (especially if you've been reading other reviews saying the same) but is well worth the $100 difference between last year's 8GB model currently running only $99.
But what have I liked most? Web browsing. Surfing the web was cool at first with both the iPhone and iPod Touch, but when you got to chunky sites with huge discussion threads like Slashdot, things really got to be a pain when the Safari browser would slow to a crawl or outright crash. Doubling the memory and CPU clock speed definitely helps with this use case and it has not disappointed at all. Copy/paste make the experience even more manageable, especially when used to clear large amounts of text from a text area.
I used the iPhone all weekend and did not notice a single oily smudge on the device. Compared to a friend's previous generation phone, mine retained its nice clean mirror finish.
So, anything to dislike? I'm not sure if my device is messed up or there is a lot of interference, but the GPS is woefully inaccurate. I've attempted to get an accurate reading by
disabling the 3G and WiFi connection on my iPhone, but I've had its reading put me as much as
six miles away from my present location.
Video taking hasn't impressed me much, either, but I'll admit I haven't actually downloaded it onto a computer yet. The resulting video looks 'smudgy' and the audio didn't seem very loud on the iPhone itself, so I'll have to do more investigation on what it looks like from another computer.
All in all I'm very happy with the device and it was totally worth the wait.
UPDATE 16:18: I'm going to chalk up the GPS problems to interference at my house. I took the iPhone out for a spin and noticed near flawless tracking once I had left my home. Time to do some investigation...
Saturday, June 20, 2009
#
Today we decided to do something adventurous, all in the name of having something different to eat. We decided to get a BBQ grill. We found one we liked at a reasonable price at Walmart, except that we didn't see any on the shelves. Two Walmart employees and a little bit of wandering later, it was determined that the only one they had left was the floor model. No problem of course, mentioned the employee, except for the fact that it wouldn't fit assemled together in our car.
Me: Now, can you go get a box and disassemble it so I may take it home?
Employee: Uh...we don't have any boxes.
(oh noes! they're trying to steal ze boxes!)
Me: C'mon, this is Walmart, I'm sure you have tons of boxes back there.
Employee: Well, I don't know how to take it apart.
Me: You put it together, didn't you?
Employee: No, we have people that put it together in back.
Me: Well, if they put them together, I'm quite sure that they would know how to take it apart.
(Unioned BBQ assembling gnomes no doubt!)
Employee: Ugh, I'll be right back.
Five minutes later, the very same employee comes back with some tools and a pet carrier box and begins taking the grill apart. So much for 'the guys in back' who do all the work. It was quite laughable to see him use any excuse he could to not take it apart. Sigh. To be nice, though, I assisted him in taking it apart since it was a two man job in some places. It was also a good time for me to study how to reassemble it once back home.
I'm happy we were able to fit it in alright for the trip home and now it's ready for tomorrow. I can taste those steaks already!
Monday, June 08, 2009
#
Today was pretty exciting as far as Apple news goes with the announcement of the release of Mac OS X 10.6 'Snow Leopard', new MacBooks, MacBook Air price reductions, iPhone OS 3.0, and yes, the iPhone 3GS. Most rumors actually turned out to be correct, such as MMS, a 3 megapixel auto-focus camera, tethering, magnometer, and video recording. Some that didn't pan out were the new matte finish (instead of a glossy back), but the most happed for, but more far-fetched non-event was the forward facing video lens. Others that I didn't find anywhere on the rumor sites included the Voice Control feature. Gizmodo posted
a hands-on review of that feature and found it easily befuddled by background noise. It's forgivable because I'm not sure how much I will use that feature anyway.
Why is this finally going to be model I buy into? Hands down its the speed. One of the things I find irritating about the iPhone's little brother, the iPod Touch, is that it takes an enormous amount of processing power to render some sites I frequent, such as Slashdot. Their discussion threads can take an aweful amount of time to load, and in some instances, cause Safari to outright crash. With some more muscle under the hood, I should be able to run through text and javascript heavy sites that make previous versions of the Apple software want to cry.
More than that though are the staples of desktop computing: copy and paste. This is another realm where I'd do more mobile blogging if I could easily copy/paste links and quotes into my blogging platform. This will make things much easier to do.
On top of that, throw in the three megapixel camera and I feel like I have a replacement for my point and shoot camera. My three year old destroyed our DSLR substitute by trying to mash the lens back into the body of the two hundred dollar camera. With no external parts to do so, making the iPhone 3GS the new small portable camera makes a natural fit.
In the end I think this was a great, if not incremental refresh to an already good product, and with with this announcement they've found a new customer who has run out of excuses. June 19th, here we come.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
#
Last night after returning home from a Pinewood Derby event, I noticed that my rear driver side door had been dented in. This was no small job and I was quite aggravated to discover this. After wrangling with my wife on the futility of going back to investigate, we returned to the not yet complete event.
Upon closer investigation I ascertained that the damage had not been caused by a vehicle. There would have been paint missing and the impact point would have been lower on the door panel. No, a person or other obtuse object had made this damage. I ran through a catalog of people who might have done this on purpose but could not think of anyone. My next thoughts centered on who likely would have done it on accident. I focused on one particular family who were infamous for being loud, rowdy, and rambunctious and I knew that they had been playing around in the parking lot before we had initially left.
When we arrived, I saw one of the suspect kids and asked her if she knew anything about it. She responded that she did not, and giving her the benefit of the doubt, I walked back into the building.
The activity was not yet over, so I arranged to make a general announcement of my discovery. After asking for information, doubtful that anyone saw anything, I was soon approached by several people. I was told that the father and a son of the suspect family had some sort of kerfuffle outside and a) the father threw his son into my car, or b) the son had kicked in my door in attempt to kick his dad. Either way may suspicions were confirmed, but I was at a loss that even the father was involved. Even more disturbing was the lack of integrity on his part to disclose to me what he had done.
I quickly located the perpetrator and approached him, stating that I understood that he and his son had had a 'run in with my car'. His whole demeanor seemed to change. He was quite upset, not at me, but rather his son, for it seemed that the full weight fo the implications of their altercation came to bear.
He seemed quite insistent that he would pay for it because It became apparent to him that his insurance would not cover the outcome of a domestic dispute, yet we both knew that he would not have the cash to cover the damage. He remarked that he would have to take out a pay day advance, for he expected to have to pay at least over a grand in repairs.
Now enter the moral quandary. Justice demands that he pay restitution for the damage to my car. Mercy would say that I should forgive him his debt and foot the bill myself. But even though I have comprehensive insurance that would likely repair such a thing, I do not wish to file a claim, however, because I do not want my premium to go up. I also don't want him to take out a payday advance loan, simply because I find such institutions to be morally reprehensible and the equivalent of economic slavery.
Now, I do think there is some moral middle ground to be had here. I think he should still pay for it. It is only just that he pay for the damage done; I am an innocent party in his domestic issues with his son. I would, however, be willing to front the cost and have him pay me back on some predetermined terms that would be substantially less economically impacting than a loan shark. I would not charge interest, I would be satisfied with a simple return of principle.
Are my thoughts on the matter too much to ask?
Thursday, May 14, 2009
#
It's always interesting to pit Microsoft and Apple together for comparisons, even more so, though, since they share a rivalry that spans decades. Ars has some
cool analysis from a TechEd 2009 video. The more interesting part involves a mea culpa on the Windows Mobile 6.5 hack job:
The reason why we couldn't complete the interface on Windows Mobile 6.5 is because of time. We only spend what, eight months, nine months, to build 6.5 from ground up and it's actually an amazing engineering feat. But, in order to do that, we had to do some prioritization and we had to cut certain features. Eventually, we will make sure that the UI capabilities are carried out throughout the whole platform.
Now, compare that to Apple and the iPhone. It's hard to argue that Apple focused more on form than function (no copy/paste, no initial app store, etc.) but everyone loved the device anyway. I think it might have everything to do with first having a vision of what the device would do, focus efforts of bare-bones functionality,
but make the user interface experience of that functionality look superb. Microsoft seems to have taken the opposite approach in a desperate attempt to stymie the iPhone's explosive growth, but I have an awful feeling that the me-too approach is not going to be as successful as it has been in years past with other Microsoft staples.
In all, it comes down to a difference in paradigm. Apple goes to great lengths for a quality user experience; Microsoft, flood the market with half-baked, copycat clones. If current trends are in indicator of the future, things don't look so hot for that approach.
Saturday, May 09, 2009
#
I installed the first release candidate for Windows 7 this afternoon. I was pretty impressed. Install is pretty easy, setup a snap, and the operating itself seems to have the polish one expects out of product that has over a twenty year history. The biggest thing, however, is it is much more responsive when playing games than its predecessor, Windows Vista, ever had.
The UI, too, has gotten quite a rework. From the new task bar to a few new eye-candy tweaks, Windows 7 is worthy of an upgrade from Windows XP. Except on thing--why upgrade? XP works fine for me, does everything I need it to do, and is quite a bit less of a hassle in regard to reinstallation and reactivation issues. All the software I use (and still being published) don't require an upgrade. It's as if the software development side hasn't really bought into anything post-XP as well. Games are still backward compatible with DirectX 9 (latest version available on XP), so it's not as if I'm missing out on the gaming scene by not switching.
But then again, there's this: if I purchase a prebuilt computer with an OEM copy of Windows 7, I don't see any reason to
wipe it and load XP on. Coming from me, that's saying a lot, considering what an anti-Vista pundit I've become. In the end, taking Windows 7 for a drive only reinforces the sentiment I've had since the initial beta, that Windows 7 is what Vista should have been all along.
Wednesday, May 06, 2009
#
Windows 7's release is on the horizon with the debut of its first release candidate this week, but even more troubling than the repeat of the myriad versions that we'll have to sort through, most people won't be able to take advantage of the new 'XP Mode'. XP Mode allows a user to run a concurrent virtual instance on Windows XP while using Windows 7. The idea is to ease the transition of users who still need to run certain applications that are not compatible with Windows Vista or 7. That's all fine and dandy, of course, except a few caveats.
First, you have to be running Professional, Enterprise, or Ultimate to use it. Then, you must have a compatible Intel processor that has Intel Virtualization Technology. If that wasn't hard enough to determine, you must also enable the hardware feature in your bios. Why all the complication? One thing I find myself asking with technology is this:
Is it going to make life easier?
One of the great things I've found about running Parallels on my Mac is the ease of not just installing the software, but the simplicity of running a parallel operating system. I didn't need any special hardware. I didn't need any additional software. I didn't even have to reboot my computer.
I have not tried the release candidate yet, but I found the Windows 7 beta to be a much more refined iteration of the Windows OS. But it's too bad that Microsoft has not learned from the tactics that Apple has used to differentiate itself in its
I'm A Mac campaign: Technology should make the computing experience easy, simple, but more importantly
joyful for those who use one. This latest stumble is more evidence that Microsoft just doesn't get it.
Friday, April 24, 2009
#
Three things drove me to adopt Blu-Ray last year: first, I bought a 42" HD TV, second, the price of an internal Blu-Ray drive (~$100) has acceptable, and third (the most important), the DRM had been cracked.
One cannot argue about the superior picture that high definition movies offer, but it has been the DRM and the perceived complicated 'bag of hurt' associated with having the right combination of devices, cables, firmware, etc. to even watch them. It is, however, not a problem at all when you can remove those complications and simply sit down and watch a movie. You see, Blu-Ray is less about the 'HD-ness' than it is about the means employed to 'safeguard' the content that studios wish to protect.
Once you get past the locks and keys, the underlying technology (the part you watch and hear) is not that different from what is typically found on regular DVDs or other popular media formats. In reality, at Blu-Ray's core there is really nothing new--which is why Blu-Ray's success (or failure) doesn't matter to consumers. In the end (as long as it is ripable), Blu-Ray could suffer an untimely death and everything would be OK, simply because the video stream is portable enough to be viewed without the 'bag of hurt'.
HD-DVD could have been just as successful. If I had been unwise enough to join the ranks of the HD format war and bought into that technology, I still wouldn't feel bad as a consumer, simply because it too had been cracked, making the video transportable to be played anywhere.
And maybe that's why the movie industry is left quivering in their boots: anti-copy protection tools defeat lock-in. They overcome the desire from not just the studios, but the hardware makers to keep you on one platform from which they can make more money. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with wanting that, but as a consumer it is quite frustrating to have to dance to a pretty restrictive copy protection scheme.
Long live Blu-Ray, not because there is anything cool about its format, but because the means to use it how I wish is already here. And if you die, it will be OK because I will still not need to repurchase anything in High Definition.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
#
I got an email late last night from the Smashing Pumpkins announcing a new subscription service for upcoming material. The service, as outlined in the announcement promises subscribers a minimum of 5 hours of audio and video updates over a three month period for $40. So what exactly does this mean?
Details seem to be scant outside a few bullet points, but a subscription service misses out on a few key things that many general music subscription services don't seem to get: People want to own something. When the tap is closed off, fans still want something show for their investment.
The next question it raises is the quality of the content itself. When a person buys an album, countless hours have gone into the product to refine it and take it to its final state. With content supposedly being posted within twenty four hours of being produced, what is the value proposition here?
I applaud Billy Corgan for seeking new ways to monetize the music business, but I am left to wonder how this will really play out. I'm a pretty big Pumpkins fan (and have been for a long time) but I can't help but think that he's starting to grasp at whatever he can to make some dough, despite this experiment being a "working model that is not profit motivated but rather information and access motivated". If this were so, I would think that (at least initially) the content would be there for free. I would opine that if he really, truly wanted to monetize this, he needs to prove the subscription's worth. The content that has here to for been posted on the Smashing Pumpkins website has failed to impress me thus far, I just can't see myself plunking down a chunk of change for some of the same-old-stuff we've seen for the past two years.
Digg ran a really great interview with Trent Reznor, point man for Nine Inch Nails. Trent is on the forefront of really taking music to the next level as far as business models go, and who has arguably been the most successful at monetizing free music through the marketing of the Nine Inch Nails brand itself. Trent realizes that the music itself has become a commodity, but its in the brand and the live experience that really generates the $$$ for NIN.
So will I buy into Billy's experiment? Likely not. I'll just wait for the next album to come out (if it even comes) because I know that I after I pay ten bucks for it, at least I'll own the tracks at the end of the day.