Internet
The 2008 Election Is Over ... Finally
11/05/08 07:55 AM Filed in: Indiscriminate
It looks like
we will finally have a new President come
January, and quite a bit of change to come with
that!
I'm baffled by how many people seem to have fallen victim to the silly catch phrase "Yes We Can!" or Obama's claim to "bring change to our nation." Listen, any President will bring change. Claim something significant. And "Yes We Can!" just sounds like a slogan off of Bob the Builder.
But enough bashing of our new President-to-be. That's actually not what I wanted to talk about anyway, I just had to get it out.
Hopefully for the last several months you've been praying that God's will would be done, not that John McCain would be our next President. (I'm looking at you, Conservative Republican-Voting Christians!) That's probably not the right way to go aabout it, and anyway, I believe that God's will has been done.
One thing I'm pretty excited about now that the election is finally past is that your cheesy Facebook statuses will go away. Seriously ... Let me just give you a few examples to prove my point without using any names. (The names that are used below are only because I know the people wouldn't care and because they were one of the few being positive about the election.)
Jane Doe is scared for his country.
Seeing as how we're the most powerful country in the world, this may be a good feeling to have. And change is always a scary thing, for the good or bad. Though, as V for Vendetta, "People should not be afraid of their governments; governments should be afraid of their people." In general, however, I don't think you need to be scared of Obama. He's going to do what's best for our country. That's what we elected him to do.
Jane Doe is thinking America is retarded. The only difference between Obama and Osama is B.S.
This sounds like something I would have heard as a joke back in Junior High. But I think she actually may believe it. Anyway, this is ridiculously racist, since about the only thing that's similar between the two of them is that they have darker skin. Please don't try to bring up any bogus remarks about Obama's ties with terrorist organizations now.
Also, prior to the heat of the election, Microsoft Word auto-corrected "Obama" to "Osama" because it didn't know the word, but this has been fixed since then. True story.
John Doe is praying that his country is not really this ignorant.
Probably not. We're not all complete idiots, we know what we voted for.
John Doe congradulates Al-Qaeda.
Honestly, Brad, what school do you go to? You can't even spell congratulate ...
John Doe knows this country needs a lot of prayer now.
I hope that you pray for our country all the time and would have been praying for our country just as much had McCain won. Everything always need all the prayer we can give it.
Jane Doe is here comes socialism.
By the way, Facebook finally removed the obligatory "is", so you could change it to "Jane Doe says" and it would sound even better. Anyway, last time I checked we're still a Democracy and always will be.
John Doe is very scared for the fate of the free world.
Still free. That's why we elected a new President, because we can and we have the right to.
John Doe likes babies. Go McCain!
I like babies as well! They're cute and wiggly and they go "coo" a lot. But, wait, aren't we talking about an election here? As in, who's going to lead our country? Sorry if this sounds harsh, but this isn't a single-issue election, and those who vote based upon a single issue bother me. We voted for the person who could best lead our country in every situation.
John Doe is begining to question peoples christianity who are voting for obama...you fools are unbelievable.
Your status is unbelievable. Last time I checked, God doesn't vote. He doesn't even believe in democracy.
John Doe hopes that by this time tomorrow we can ALL unite under the leadership of whoever wins, whether it's McCain or Obama.
Finally, a mature status! Thanks, Dan, you rock. That's the kind of attitude we need.
John Doe is still proud to be an American, because, last time he checked, he was still free.
Nice, Keenan! You certainly are, and that's the kind of attitude we need here.
Jane Doe is ENGAGED!!!!
Apparently not everyone was thinking about the election last night. Congratulations to my good friends Mr. and Mrs. (to be) David Benson :)! Honestly, any guy who writes "Will You Marry Me?" in flaming napalm on the ground has MY vote. And apparently hers, since she said yes :).
OK, there are countless statuses that bothered me because they were so closed-minded or inconsiderate of other people or God's sovereignty. Or did everyone suddenly forget that we live under the rule of an all-powerful God?
What bothered me most last night was how quickly McCain withdrew from the race. I mean, obviously he was going to lose ... That was predictable around 9:00pm. But it just seemed weak to bow out so quickly. On the flip side, what was it with hundreds of thousands of his supports booing him when he announced his support for our next President, Barack Obama? That's support, huh? I think it's silly he pulled out so soon, but I at least support his decision.
Anyway, you all should have voted for Cox/Laird ’08 last night. But seriously, hopefully people's statuses will soon go back to pointless banter about their upcoming tests, how some girl is annoying them, or the horrible food at Chuck's. Things that don't matter, and things that don't sarcasticly point fingers of blame at fellow believers.
By the way. I voted for John McCain. And I support Barack Obama.
I'm baffled by how many people seem to have fallen victim to the silly catch phrase "Yes We Can!" or Obama's claim to "bring change to our nation." Listen, any President will bring change. Claim something significant. And "Yes We Can!" just sounds like a slogan off of Bob the Builder.
But enough bashing of our new President-to-be. That's actually not what I wanted to talk about anyway, I just had to get it out.
Hopefully for the last several months you've been praying that God's will would be done, not that John McCain would be our next President. (I'm looking at you, Conservative Republican-Voting Christians!) That's probably not the right way to go aabout it, and anyway, I believe that God's will has been done.
One thing I'm pretty excited about now that the election is finally past is that your cheesy Facebook statuses will go away. Seriously ... Let me just give you a few examples to prove my point without using any names. (The names that are used below are only because I know the people wouldn't care and because they were one of the few being positive about the election.)
Jane Doe is scared for his country.
Seeing as how we're the most powerful country in the world, this may be a good feeling to have. And change is always a scary thing, for the good or bad. Though, as V for Vendetta, "People should not be afraid of their governments; governments should be afraid of their people." In general, however, I don't think you need to be scared of Obama. He's going to do what's best for our country. That's what we elected him to do.
Jane Doe is thinking America is retarded. The only difference between Obama and Osama is B.S.
This sounds like something I would have heard as a joke back in Junior High. But I think she actually may believe it. Anyway, this is ridiculously racist, since about the only thing that's similar between the two of them is that they have darker skin. Please don't try to bring up any bogus remarks about Obama's ties with terrorist organizations now.
Also, prior to the heat of the election, Microsoft Word auto-corrected "Obama" to "Osama" because it didn't know the word, but this has been fixed since then. True story.
John Doe is praying that his country is not really this ignorant.
Probably not. We're not all complete idiots, we know what we voted for.
John Doe congradulates Al-Qaeda.
Honestly, Brad, what school do you go to? You can't even spell congratulate ...
John Doe knows this country needs a lot of prayer now.
I hope that you pray for our country all the time and would have been praying for our country just as much had McCain won. Everything always need all the prayer we can give it.
Jane Doe is here comes socialism.
By the way, Facebook finally removed the obligatory "is", so you could change it to "Jane Doe says" and it would sound even better. Anyway, last time I checked we're still a Democracy and always will be.
John Doe is very scared for the fate of the free world.
Still free. That's why we elected a new President, because we can and we have the right to.
John Doe likes babies. Go McCain!
I like babies as well! They're cute and wiggly and they go "coo" a lot. But, wait, aren't we talking about an election here? As in, who's going to lead our country? Sorry if this sounds harsh, but this isn't a single-issue election, and those who vote based upon a single issue bother me. We voted for the person who could best lead our country in every situation.
John Doe is begining to question peoples christianity who are voting for obama...you fools are unbelievable.
Your status is unbelievable. Last time I checked, God doesn't vote. He doesn't even believe in democracy.
John Doe hopes that by this time tomorrow we can ALL unite under the leadership of whoever wins, whether it's McCain or Obama.
Finally, a mature status! Thanks, Dan, you rock. That's the kind of attitude we need.
John Doe is still proud to be an American, because, last time he checked, he was still free.
Nice, Keenan! You certainly are, and that's the kind of attitude we need here.
Jane Doe is ENGAGED!!!!
Apparently not everyone was thinking about the election last night. Congratulations to my good friends Mr. and Mrs. (to be) David Benson :)! Honestly, any guy who writes "Will You Marry Me?" in flaming napalm on the ground has MY vote. And apparently hers, since she said yes :).
OK, there are countless statuses that bothered me because they were so closed-minded or inconsiderate of other people or God's sovereignty. Or did everyone suddenly forget that we live under the rule of an all-powerful God?
What bothered me most last night was how quickly McCain withdrew from the race. I mean, obviously he was going to lose ... That was predictable around 9:00pm. But it just seemed weak to bow out so quickly. On the flip side, what was it with hundreds of thousands of his supports booing him when he announced his support for our next President, Barack Obama? That's support, huh? I think it's silly he pulled out so soon, but I at least support his decision.
Anyway, you all should have voted for Cox/Laird ’08 last night. But seriously, hopefully people's statuses will soon go back to pointless banter about their upcoming tests, how some girl is annoying them, or the horrible food at Chuck's. Things that don't matter, and things that don't sarcasticly point fingers of blame at fellow believers.
By the way. I voted for John McCain. And I support Barack Obama.
|
"Those People" You Hate On Facebook
10/23/08 03:16 PM Filed in: Indiscriminate
You know those Facebook
personalities that float around, haunting the world's
best social networking site. Everybody knows
them. They're unavoidable. Well, here's a
list of the most common and annoying ones that I've
found. If you find that you fit one of
these stereotypes, please, do all of your friends a
favor. Stop doing that
thing.
The Poker
I don't actually need to say anything about this. It's self explanatory. Why does poking exist? It's stupid. Stop poking me.
The Groupie
The Groupie is the guy who thinks every cause, every inside joke, every event, everything deserves a Facebook group. It doesn't. Coincidently, most Groupies tend to be quite illiterate and can't even properly convey their cause in less than seventy-five characters. This leads to his group name having far too many punctuation marks and not enough legitimate words. Also, lots of abbreviations.
As if there aren't already enough groups out there. Heck, there are duplicates of groups, just spelled and exclaimed differently. You can find fan groups, anti-fan groups, event groups, groups trying to be the biggest group, groups against groups, groups that are against groups that are against groups, groups against duplicate groups (ironically, there's a ton of those ... Check it), groups ... You get the idea. All that, and there's not even really a point to them. If you're a fan of something, why join a group? Add it to your Interests ...
The Groupie may also be known for being ...
The Invitation Freak
Back in 2007, shortly after Facebook apps were launched, Facebook had over 3,000 apps you could add, and was averaging 100 new apps every day. That's way too many to sift through. Unfortunately, The Invitation Freak will somehow find time to sift through them all and invite you to all of them as well. Numerous times. (I'm still not sure whether vampires or werewolves are better ...)
But he won't just do this with apps. No, he'll do it with groups, pages, events ... everything. Anything that has the "Invite People to Join" button, The Invitation Freak will invite you to it. The reason Facebook has become so insecure recently and has been the result of countless hacking attempts is essentially the fault of The Invitation Freak. Anyone can write an app; therefore the same geniuses who keep Symantec and McAfee in business will also make apps to hack Facebook.
The Obnoxious Tagger
The Obnoxious Tagger thinks your life isn't complete without theirs. That's why they have to tag you in all of their notes, photos, and videos. They think you need to know about the good time they had, about how depressed they are, or whatever.
Quickly check out this page on tagging in Facebook. Notice, under photos, it says, "Facebook provides users with the opportunity to identify the people in their photos by 'tagging' the images." ... Hold on, let me just say it again "... identify the people in their photos ..." This would imply the person was, in fact, in the photo. This principle should also be applied to Notes. If the person is not actually mentioned in the note, you don't need to tag them.
Look, everything you do or add on Facebook will show up in my News Feed moments after you do it, so it's not like I don't know you wrote a note. I suppose the cause of this may be because The Obnoxious Tagger is also actually ...
The Attention Monger
The Attention Monger has to be seen on Facebook. They update their status on an unhealthy basis, constantly put pictures (of themselves) into albums, update their status again (even though they aren't doing anything new), comment on all your photos and notes, right on everyone’s wall (because it will show up in the News Feed!) ... Anything that can be posted on, they will post on. Anything that can be updated, they will update so they're always at the top of your News Feed. Just met them? They'll add you. Just added an album and forgot to tag them in a photo? They'll tag it for you.
Their profile is completely full. They list every band, every movie, every everything they possibly can in their profile. They even have that Extended Profile app to add MORE, just in case you actually do pay attention to them for once ... They want you to know how awesome they are.
Unfortunately, people who see The Attention Monger all too often must ask the question ...
Do I Know You?
This person adds you when they don't really know you. You meet them once, they permanently engrain your name into their memory because they think you're cute, and then they go back to their dorm and add you as a friend. But you aren't really friends. Webster says a friend is "one attached to another by affection or esteem" or "a favored companion". Someone can't be either of these things after one or two meetings, no matter how cute they are.
Then there's the person on Facebook who thinks they're on MySpace. I think they literally just search for random names and add people when they're bored. I used to know somebody who would just always look up their own name and add anyone whom they had that common bond with.
Finally, there's the "I know you through your cousin" guy. Look, we've never met, so why are you adding me? I don't care if you know my cousin, or you went to school with my parents and you're fifty (that happened to me once). Facebook is a social networking site, not an online dating community. Although some of you seem to have a pretty severe misunderstanding about that.
The Creeper
The Creeper always is the first to comment on your photos of the previous night’s slumber party. He always knows your latest status update (he has them texted to his phone), and he's not afraid to ask you about them in person. He's always curious about your camping trip last weekend (he knows you went on it because he saw the album). He sends you messages and writes on your wall about how he hasn't seen you in a while, but you look like you're having fun.
Oh, and he also started texting you. He got your number from your profile.
The Complainer
The Complainer basically hates Facebook. Everything about it. The new design sucks, it's always slow, and you need to be able to customize profiles, why don't they make an app that does this?
Look, if you want a customizable profile, go back to MySpace. We don't want your glitter here. Facebook is clean and intuitive (and quiet ... Yes, you, who uploads music on your MySpace). Go design your own website if Facebook isn't good enough for you, but there's a very important fact you must remember: Facebook is free. And has far less obnoxious ads than MySpace or Xanga.
And, I just have to say this, no matter how many people you get to join a group, some magnificent thing will not happen. For instance, Facebook will not change the design back if you get 10 million people to join your group. They invested months into designing and programming it, and you think they're going to just throw it away? They'll try to upgrade it more to please you, but they will never go back to the old layout. And they will never support both layouts. That would be impractical, a nightmare to maintain, and downright stupid.
Why bother?
They're the opposite of The Attention Monger. They have nothing on their Facebook. They even have The Question Mark as their profile picture. They list maybe one or two interests, bands, and movies, and that's pretty much it. Their About Me section is empty. They have no photo albums or notes, and they never update their status. They've never commented on a single photo or note since they registered. In fact, they only really got a Facebook because you forced them to. Because you're The Attention Monger and you wanted them to look at your profile. Nice work ...
That concludes the rather extensive list. Basically, if you're thinking you may be doing something wrong (or annoying) on Facebook, consult The Ten Commandments of Facebook before continuing. It will answer all of your questions if this list didn't.
The Poker
I don't actually need to say anything about this. It's self explanatory. Why does poking exist? It's stupid. Stop poking me.
The Groupie
The Groupie is the guy who thinks every cause, every inside joke, every event, everything deserves a Facebook group. It doesn't. Coincidently, most Groupies tend to be quite illiterate and can't even properly convey their cause in less than seventy-five characters. This leads to his group name having far too many punctuation marks and not enough legitimate words. Also, lots of abbreviations.
As if there aren't already enough groups out there. Heck, there are duplicates of groups, just spelled and exclaimed differently. You can find fan groups, anti-fan groups, event groups, groups trying to be the biggest group, groups against groups, groups that are against groups that are against groups, groups against duplicate groups (ironically, there's a ton of those ... Check it), groups ... You get the idea. All that, and there's not even really a point to them. If you're a fan of something, why join a group? Add it to your Interests ...
The Groupie may also be known for being ...
The Invitation Freak
Back in 2007, shortly after Facebook apps were launched, Facebook had over 3,000 apps you could add, and was averaging 100 new apps every day. That's way too many to sift through. Unfortunately, The Invitation Freak will somehow find time to sift through them all and invite you to all of them as well. Numerous times. (I'm still not sure whether vampires or werewolves are better ...)
But he won't just do this with apps. No, he'll do it with groups, pages, events ... everything. Anything that has the "Invite People to Join" button, The Invitation Freak will invite you to it. The reason Facebook has become so insecure recently and has been the result of countless hacking attempts is essentially the fault of The Invitation Freak. Anyone can write an app; therefore the same geniuses who keep Symantec and McAfee in business will also make apps to hack Facebook.
The Obnoxious Tagger
The Obnoxious Tagger thinks your life isn't complete without theirs. That's why they have to tag you in all of their notes, photos, and videos. They think you need to know about the good time they had, about how depressed they are, or whatever.
Quickly check out this page on tagging in Facebook. Notice, under photos, it says, "Facebook provides users with the opportunity to identify the people in their photos by 'tagging' the images." ... Hold on, let me just say it again "... identify the people in their photos ..." This would imply the person was, in fact, in the photo. This principle should also be applied to Notes. If the person is not actually mentioned in the note, you don't need to tag them.
Look, everything you do or add on Facebook will show up in my News Feed moments after you do it, so it's not like I don't know you wrote a note. I suppose the cause of this may be because The Obnoxious Tagger is also actually ...
The Attention Monger
The Attention Monger has to be seen on Facebook. They update their status on an unhealthy basis, constantly put pictures (of themselves) into albums, update their status again (even though they aren't doing anything new), comment on all your photos and notes, right on everyone’s wall (because it will show up in the News Feed!) ... Anything that can be posted on, they will post on. Anything that can be updated, they will update so they're always at the top of your News Feed. Just met them? They'll add you. Just added an album and forgot to tag them in a photo? They'll tag it for you.
Their profile is completely full. They list every band, every movie, every everything they possibly can in their profile. They even have that Extended Profile app to add MORE, just in case you actually do pay attention to them for once ... They want you to know how awesome they are.
Unfortunately, people who see The Attention Monger all too often must ask the question ...
Do I Know You?
This person adds you when they don't really know you. You meet them once, they permanently engrain your name into their memory because they think you're cute, and then they go back to their dorm and add you as a friend. But you aren't really friends. Webster says a friend is "one attached to another by affection or esteem" or "a favored companion". Someone can't be either of these things after one or two meetings, no matter how cute they are.
Then there's the person on Facebook who thinks they're on MySpace. I think they literally just search for random names and add people when they're bored. I used to know somebody who would just always look up their own name and add anyone whom they had that common bond with.
Finally, there's the "I know you through your cousin" guy. Look, we've never met, so why are you adding me? I don't care if you know my cousin, or you went to school with my parents and you're fifty (that happened to me once). Facebook is a social networking site, not an online dating community. Although some of you seem to have a pretty severe misunderstanding about that.
The Creeper
The Creeper always is the first to comment on your photos of the previous night’s slumber party. He always knows your latest status update (he has them texted to his phone), and he's not afraid to ask you about them in person. He's always curious about your camping trip last weekend (he knows you went on it because he saw the album). He sends you messages and writes on your wall about how he hasn't seen you in a while, but you look like you're having fun.
Oh, and he also started texting you. He got your number from your profile.
The Complainer
The Complainer basically hates Facebook. Everything about it. The new design sucks, it's always slow, and you need to be able to customize profiles, why don't they make an app that does this?
Look, if you want a customizable profile, go back to MySpace. We don't want your glitter here. Facebook is clean and intuitive (and quiet ... Yes, you, who uploads music on your MySpace). Go design your own website if Facebook isn't good enough for you, but there's a very important fact you must remember: Facebook is free. And has far less obnoxious ads than MySpace or Xanga.
And, I just have to say this, no matter how many people you get to join a group, some magnificent thing will not happen. For instance, Facebook will not change the design back if you get 10 million people to join your group. They invested months into designing and programming it, and you think they're going to just throw it away? They'll try to upgrade it more to please you, but they will never go back to the old layout. And they will never support both layouts. That would be impractical, a nightmare to maintain, and downright stupid.
Why bother?
They're the opposite of The Attention Monger. They have nothing on their Facebook. They even have The Question Mark as their profile picture. They list maybe one or two interests, bands, and movies, and that's pretty much it. Their About Me section is empty. They have no photo albums or notes, and they never update their status. They've never commented on a single photo or note since they registered. In fact, they only really got a Facebook because you forced them to. Because you're The Attention Monger and you wanted them to look at your profile. Nice work ...
That concludes the rather extensive list. Basically, if you're thinking you may be doing something wrong (or annoying) on Facebook, consult The Ten Commandments of Facebook before continuing. It will answer all of your questions if this list didn't.
Facebook's Double Posting ...
10/22/08 10:39 PM Filed in: Indiscriminate
Just as a random note,
what is the deal with Facebook posting some of my
notes twice? Don’t you know how to read a feed? I’ve
even gone back and deleted the duplicates, but guess
what? They appear again a couple days later. So, in
case any of you were wondering, that’s why I have
double posts on some of my older blogs on the
Facebook Note stream ... Weird.
Dave and Alex's Happy Fun-Time Blog
10/16/08 04:32 PM Filed in: Indiscriminate
Dave and I decided to
start a collaborative blog that’s probably more
awesome than anything else you may be reading, so you
should check it out.
Dave and Alex’s Happy Fun-Time Blog
Dave and Alex’s Happy Fun-Time Blog
Chrome ... A New Way to Look at Browsing
09/25/08 07:39 PM Filed in: Technology
Healthy competition is
good. But if all the companies competing aren't on an
equal playing field, one company will be dwarfed and
squeezed out of the race fairly rapidly. That is what
the three-year-old, California-based company was
afraid of in 2001 when the concept of a building
their own browser first emerged; they weren't big
enough yet.
Now, in 2008, Google employs nearly 20,000 people, has a net income of over four billion dollars annually, and has the most widely used, well known search enginge in the world. Heck, they have their own verb! They're finally ready to compete in a battle that matters and is grossly overlooked. The battle of the browsers.
On September 2nd, 2008, Google released it's beta browser, Google Chrome.
So, why do we need another battle of the browsers? Didn't we finally settle down and decide Firefox was simply the best browser there ever was or ever will be? Simple answer: No. Firefox leaves a lot to be desired, and we certainly can’t be expected to rely on Internet Explorer or Safari for our browsing needs. Before reading what I love about Google Chrome and why it could be the solution to all our browser woes, first read my critique of old, failed browsers.
For the last too-many-years, Internet Explorer and Firefox have been battling it out, trying to keep their users. The problem is, both browsers lack something significant. They’re entering the browser race from the wrong perspective. Internet Explorer only recently allows extensions, and they’re very limited. Firefox allows extensions to run rampant, but even worse it relies on them for all of its functionality. What we need is a browser that relies on the website itself for the functionality. And how about some old-fashioned simplicity? Apple knows where that’s at ... So does Google.
When we need a map (Google Maps), have a question relating to anything in the world (Google Search), need to check our email (Gmail), write a blog (Blogger), watch a video (YouTube/Google Videos), or check the latest headlines (Google News), Google is our ultimate destination. So, if one company understands the internet, how to search it, and how to manage it so well, why don’t we allow them to design our browser, which will peruse the internet they allow us to search. They know what we need.
Google Chrome boasts privacy. Though many are up-in-arms about the agreement you’re forced to agree to before downloading the software, you must realize it’s in beta ... Of course they’re going to analyze your browsing for testing purposes. That doesn’t mean they’re selling it to Russia. Google Chrome allows you to search and edit your browsing history. Not only that, there’s a “silent mode” which allows you to browse privately without leaving a trace on the site or the computer.
Google Chrome will soon be multi-platform. The Mac and Linux versions are in currently being developed. After all, if Google Chrome is really going to try to compete with Firefox, they simply must be cross-platform. Additionally, Google Chrome is open source currently, as it is in beta, which leaves it open to innovation from nerds all over the world. Luckily, we have our friends at Google monitoring this to make sure nobody bloats it; only the useful stuff will be added into later releases.
Google Chrome provides a simple, elegant interface that just makes sense. “Intuitive” comes to mind ... makes me think of Mac, for some reason. Searching Google, typing an address, and searching your history are all combined into the one bar at the top of the browser. Of course, there is tabbed browsing, and new tabs can display a list (images included) of your most visited websites. Drag the tab away from the menu bar and make it a new window easily.
Google Chrome is reliable. Tabbed browsing is great, but, let’s face it, something’s going to make you crash someday ... Luckily, Google Chrome looks at each individual tab as its own instance of the browser, and if once freezes, it won’t crash the entire browser.
Google Chrome is fast. Really fast. Some folks bothered running these fancy things called “benchmarks” on the browser and, who knows how, determined that Internet Explorer is still faster. Yah, they’re wrong. There’s no way that’s true. Run your benchmarks all day long, people, but no matter what algorithms your benchmarks run to determine performance speeds, they can’t argue with the fact that I can sit here and visibly see a difference. If I can visibly see a difference, your benchmarks are wrong. Do them again. Not only do pages load faster and tabs open instantaneously, the browser launches without a hiccup as well, largely in part to it’s very small footprint.
Google Chrome comes JavaScript ready, enhancing sites that use Java and allowing them to load faster. Included in this functionality is the ability to create shortcuts to web-based applications straight on your desktop. For instance, Google Docs (or Zoho Docs, if you’re not a fan of Google Docs), Gmail, your blog ... Create direct links to them straight on your desktop, and have them open quickly in their own little Google Chrome window, just like an application. In fact, this was the main concept which Google Chrome is built around.
A lot of the flack I’ve heard about Google Chrome is, in fact, it’s simple design. People seem to think that because it’s so simplistic, it can’t do anything. Apparently that’s the culture we’ve been drowned in. Look, something doesn’t always have to be flashing in your face, offering you things to click on, for it to be good. You should control the your computer and it’s programs, the computer and it’s software should not control you.
What I’m most comfortable with is simply the fact that this browser was developed by Google, a company I’ve come to rely on and trust for my web browsing. As it develops and comes out of beta, I don’t think they’ll allow it to bloat. It will continually be developed around internet-based applications and support for them.
I only have one more pressing question that will need to be answered in the coming months: What will the next Firefox browser look like?
Now, in 2008, Google employs nearly 20,000 people, has a net income of over four billion dollars annually, and has the most widely used, well known search enginge in the world. Heck, they have their own verb! They're finally ready to compete in a battle that matters and is grossly overlooked. The battle of the browsers.
On September 2nd, 2008, Google released it's beta browser, Google Chrome.
So, why do we need another battle of the browsers? Didn't we finally settle down and decide Firefox was simply the best browser there ever was or ever will be? Simple answer: No. Firefox leaves a lot to be desired, and we certainly can’t be expected to rely on Internet Explorer or Safari for our browsing needs. Before reading what I love about Google Chrome and why it could be the solution to all our browser woes, first read my critique of old, failed browsers.
For the last too-many-years, Internet Explorer and Firefox have been battling it out, trying to keep their users. The problem is, both browsers lack something significant. They’re entering the browser race from the wrong perspective. Internet Explorer only recently allows extensions, and they’re very limited. Firefox allows extensions to run rampant, but even worse it relies on them for all of its functionality. What we need is a browser that relies on the website itself for the functionality. And how about some old-fashioned simplicity? Apple knows where that’s at ... So does Google.
When we need a map (Google Maps), have a question relating to anything in the world (Google Search), need to check our email (Gmail), write a blog (Blogger), watch a video (YouTube/Google Videos), or check the latest headlines (Google News), Google is our ultimate destination. So, if one company understands the internet, how to search it, and how to manage it so well, why don’t we allow them to design our browser, which will peruse the internet they allow us to search. They know what we need.
Google Chrome boasts privacy. Though many are up-in-arms about the agreement you’re forced to agree to before downloading the software, you must realize it’s in beta ... Of course they’re going to analyze your browsing for testing purposes. That doesn’t mean they’re selling it to Russia. Google Chrome allows you to search and edit your browsing history. Not only that, there’s a “silent mode” which allows you to browse privately without leaving a trace on the site or the computer.
Google Chrome will soon be multi-platform. The Mac and Linux versions are in currently being developed. After all, if Google Chrome is really going to try to compete with Firefox, they simply must be cross-platform. Additionally, Google Chrome is open source currently, as it is in beta, which leaves it open to innovation from nerds all over the world. Luckily, we have our friends at Google monitoring this to make sure nobody bloats it; only the useful stuff will be added into later releases.
Google Chrome provides a simple, elegant interface that just makes sense. “Intuitive” comes to mind ... makes me think of Mac, for some reason. Searching Google, typing an address, and searching your history are all combined into the one bar at the top of the browser. Of course, there is tabbed browsing, and new tabs can display a list (images included) of your most visited websites. Drag the tab away from the menu bar and make it a new window easily.
Google Chrome is reliable. Tabbed browsing is great, but, let’s face it, something’s going to make you crash someday ... Luckily, Google Chrome looks at each individual tab as its own instance of the browser, and if once freezes, it won’t crash the entire browser.
Google Chrome is fast. Really fast. Some folks bothered running these fancy things called “benchmarks” on the browser and, who knows how, determined that Internet Explorer is still faster. Yah, they’re wrong. There’s no way that’s true. Run your benchmarks all day long, people, but no matter what algorithms your benchmarks run to determine performance speeds, they can’t argue with the fact that I can sit here and visibly see a difference. If I can visibly see a difference, your benchmarks are wrong. Do them again. Not only do pages load faster and tabs open instantaneously, the browser launches without a hiccup as well, largely in part to it’s very small footprint.
Google Chrome comes JavaScript ready, enhancing sites that use Java and allowing them to load faster. Included in this functionality is the ability to create shortcuts to web-based applications straight on your desktop. For instance, Google Docs (or Zoho Docs, if you’re not a fan of Google Docs), Gmail, your blog ... Create direct links to them straight on your desktop, and have them open quickly in their own little Google Chrome window, just like an application. In fact, this was the main concept which Google Chrome is built around.
A lot of the flack I’ve heard about Google Chrome is, in fact, it’s simple design. People seem to think that because it’s so simplistic, it can’t do anything. Apparently that’s the culture we’ve been drowned in. Look, something doesn’t always have to be flashing in your face, offering you things to click on, for it to be good. You should control the your computer and it’s programs, the computer and it’s software should not control you.
What I’m most comfortable with is simply the fact that this browser was developed by Google, a company I’ve come to rely on and trust for my web browsing. As it develops and comes out of beta, I don’t think they’ll allow it to bloat. It will continually be developed around internet-based applications and support for them.
I only have one more pressing question that will need to be answered in the coming months: What will the next Firefox browser look like?
Do You ChaCha?
06/15/08 02:30 PM Filed in: Technology
- "Why did The Happening suck so bad?"
- "At around 5:20 pm in Iowa City, IA, over Coral Ridge Mall, was there a funnel cloud or any reports of a tornado?"
- "Can males wear earrings in the '08-'09 semesters at Cedarville University?"
- "Who is Alex Laird of Iowa?"
- "How does ChaCha make money?"
Ever used Google's free SMS service? You can text it questions that are understood by it's simply search application database: Questions like "Showtimes, 52328" or "Weather, 45314" to receive the showtimes for movie theaters near Robins, IA or the weather around Cedarville, OH. The answering service is simple and usually replies within a few seconds. You can text Google SMS at GOOGL (46645). It's very convenient for simple questions, but far too often you ask it more complicated questions and it replies with a "I do not understand" message. Alas, there is only so much a computer can do ...
ChaCha takes Google SMS to the next level. Everything Google's smart app can't answer, ChaCha can! Simply text ChaCha (242242) or call 1-800-2CHACHA and ask it any question (including the ones above) to receive an in depth, personally researched answer! That's right. ChaCha has an army of "Guide's" (as they call them) waiting to personally investigate your question and send you a text message answer in reply. Usually there answer will be around 160 characters, but if the answer is too long they'll send you multiple texts. This is nice because it means the Guide won't ramble on, but it also gives them enough room to sufficiently answer the question. In general, the guides to a good job of being concise and even keeping the messages lighthearted and humorous.
Here are the answers to my aforementioned questions, in the same order:
- "I haven't seen it yet, but if the director is calling it a B movie, then it probably sucks b/c he didn't put enough into it."
- "Could have been, no info on the web yet about it, sources say Iowa City flooding could be worse than 1993!"
- "All forms of facial jewelry, other than earrings for females, are prohibited both on and off campus. No males are not allowed."
- "Alex Laird is a college student at Cedarville University in Iowa. He enjoys writing and computer programming as hobbies."
- "The company charges consumers nothing, but it says it his hoping to make money by striking deals with cellphone carries to incorporate the ChaCha service into their current 411 phone-number-look-up service. Also, it hopes to eventually include ads in the text message answers it provides."
Pretty good answers. Too bad Cedarville is in Ohio, but at least they called it a University and not just a college!
Guides get paid 20 cents every time they answer question. Additionally, ChaCha has a search engine (ChaCha Classic) online similar to that of Google. Additionally, you can call the 800 number, record your brief question, and they will text you an answer back. Anyone can sign up to be a Guide; you must take a brief questionnaire/quiz to make sure you are qualified to quickly and efficiently answer people's questions. Interestingly, all of the ChaCha services are 100% free, including ChaCha Classic. ChaCha Classic doesn't even contain targeted ads like Google's search does, so there is obviously no income for ChaCha that way. Even if ChaCha does plan on incorporating ads into the texts at a later date or making a deal for 411 incorporation with cell phone providers, that doesn't explain how they pay for their services here and now, especially considering what their Guides get paid and how many Guides they have! The only way I currently see them making money is off of their store.
Not that I'm complaining. Free always has been and shall always remain the best way to go. In the future, if you have a quick and easy question you need answered (like the definition of "inundated," movie showtimes for Columbus, OH, or the Spanish word for "cat"), Google SMS is the way to go since it frequently replies within seconds. However, it's reassuring to know you can have ANY question answered ANYtime simply with a question 160 characters or less.
NBC Decides to Play Nice
04/21/08 10:11 PM Filed in: Technology
| Media
Remember back
when NBC got a
little too full of itself a while back and decided to yank
its shows from iTunes? They pressured Apple to
increase the prices of songs and shows that were
more popular in order to make more profit;
thankfully, Apple refused to cave. NBC threatened
to not resign their contract renewal
with Apple for their Digital Media. Apple
one-upped them; they pulled all NBC shows and
music immediately, proving they didn't need NBC to
survive (though NBC does hold a
large portion of the television side of the
iTunes Store.
I've been waiting for NBC to come crawling back like a baby. Of course, NBC had to think of a way to do this without looking like a complete idiot. Coincidently, NBC didn't even try to bring up the pricing problem again. This time they said they would be OK with Apple's pricing policy, but before they would return their programming to iTunes they wanted Apple to incorporate some form of anti-piracy measures.
This could be both good and bad, as I see it. NBC wants to take advantage of the DRM Apple already incorporates, except they wish to expand it. They would like everything in your iTunes library to have the DRM written to it, which could get really frustrating and, to me, is a huge invasion of your own music rights. However, I don't deny that I think Apple will probably agree to this.
After all, I think it's only a matter of time before the FCC and RIAA crack down like mad on the internet. It will be the day when all internet freedom disintegrates and Big Brother constantly watches over your shoulder; a day I shudder to see come. Since the internet is most frequently viewed in the comforts, and privacy, of your own home, I believe their shouldn't be any type of ISP or government restrictions on it. Sure, if a corporation or parent wants to add filters for various things, that's completely legitimate. But we want the internet, our music, movies, and all types of media (yes, I'm talking to you, Adobe) DRM FREE!
I've been waiting for NBC to come crawling back like a baby. Of course, NBC had to think of a way to do this without looking like a complete idiot. Coincidently, NBC didn't even try to bring up the pricing problem again. This time they said they would be OK with Apple's pricing policy, but before they would return their programming to iTunes they wanted Apple to incorporate some form of anti-piracy measures.
This could be both good and bad, as I see it. NBC wants to take advantage of the DRM Apple already incorporates, except they wish to expand it. They would like everything in your iTunes library to have the DRM written to it, which could get really frustrating and, to me, is a huge invasion of your own music rights. However, I don't deny that I think Apple will probably agree to this.
After all, I think it's only a matter of time before the FCC and RIAA crack down like mad on the internet. It will be the day when all internet freedom disintegrates and Big Brother constantly watches over your shoulder; a day I shudder to see come. Since the internet is most frequently viewed in the comforts, and privacy, of your own home, I believe their shouldn't be any type of ISP or government restrictions on it. Sure, if a corporation or parent wants to add filters for various things, that's completely legitimate. But we want the internet, our music, movies, and all types of media (yes, I'm talking to you, Adobe) DRM FREE!
Site Stats
04/21/08 11:04 AM Filed in: Indiscriminate
I thought it would be
interesting to report the site statistics since
relaunching AlexLaird.net (finally) on February 17th,
2008 with a new look and feel. I also switched
servers on my blog, instead of hosting via blogger at
blogspot.alexlaird.net, the blog is now hosted
via Surpass Hosting
(as is the rest of
my site) and managed directly by ... Myself :D. No
more limits! I can do whatever I want with it now.
Two whole months have elapsed, and I finally got around to checking my site meter. Here are the fancy-pants statistics.
That's all for now. Thanks to all the viewers of the site and readers of the blog in just these two short months! Hopefully I'll be able to post more when school's out and beautiful Summer has set in!
On a final note, if you use Google Reader or some such subscription service to view this blog, the name of the blog may still appear as "Define 'Cool'" when, in actuality, I have changed the name to "Alex's Musings." You may have to rename it manually since some RSS readers update only post feeds and not the name of the feed.
Two whole months have elapsed, and I finally got around to checking my site meter. Here are the fancy-pants statistics.
- There have been over 2,500 unique page visits to AlexLaird.net/blog. Even more have read from the Feed, so that would be all you faithful Facebookers and Google Readers out there who read it the lame way without actually visiting my site.
- Surprisingly, over 6% of these visit last longer than an hour!
- Over 400 of these hits come from Cedarville University's campus. There also appears to be a large cluster of readers in Virginia State, San Fransisco, Germany, Australia, Canada (sorry about that one post, guys ...), and Amsterdam. I don't know how I acquired such a reader group, but thanks for showing interest.
- I'm proud to report that 40% of my visitors view this site with a Mac. Only 38% use Windows, and, sadly, only 0.2% have viewed while on Linux.
- Still, and going to show that Safari is not the most popular browser on Mac, only 27.4% of you Mac users are using Safari. 31.8% of visitors use Internet Explorer.
- The largest amount of Search Engine references for me comes from, you guessed it, Google!
- From other sites, Jenna is my biggest supporter :). I get the most referrals from her blog. I also get quite a few viewers from Ben Berberich's blog, Facebook (both Notes and on my Profile), and Ashley's blog.
That's all for now. Thanks to all the viewers of the site and readers of the blog in just these two short months! Hopefully I'll be able to post more when school's out and beautiful Summer has set in!
On a final note, if you use Google Reader or some such subscription service to view this blog, the name of the blog may still appear as "Define 'Cool'" when, in actuality, I have changed the name to "Alex's Musings." You may have to rename it manually since some RSS readers update only post feeds and not the name of the feed.
YouTube Evangelism and Music Videos
12/22/07 08:13 AM Filed in: Technology
| Media
I always chuckle a bit
when I browse my way over to some YouTube video by
Korn, Mudvayne, or some equally controversial band.
It's not so much the videos that amuse me, it's the
comments left if you scroll down below the videos. We
all know these are mainstream bands, and we all know
metal bands can be known for their colorful language
and often lyrics relating to the occult, so let's not
hold them to any moral standards, OK? But then we
have the Christian users who enjoy searching for
these videos and then leaving comments pointing out
how wrong all the artists fans are for liking it.
First of all, why are you searching for the video if
it offends you? You don't have to be listening to it
or watching it. Second of all, leaving a comment
saying, "You guys are idiots. This music is not
edifying to God in any way. He wouldn't be happy that
you're watching this. You're all going to Hell."
Well, those aren't the exact words, but there are
oh-so-many comments that say almost exactly that, or
at least allude to that.
Listen, telling someone they're an "idiot" for what they believe is not going to get them excited about switching to your religion. And since when has your personal relationship with Christ been about how guilty someone made you feel, so you just HAD to become a Christian. Isn't it way more beneficial to slowly but surely show someone God's love through the way you act? I'm pretty sure insulting someone's entire way of life through harsh words isn't a good way to show God's love.
Personally, I don't think you can even begin to "witness" to someone on a YouTube discussion board for a Slipknot music video, so please stop! Do you realize it makes all the fans hate Christian even more than Slipknot (and most of America) already does? Just look at some of the posts following when someone attempts to "witness" in response to a video like that. They're not pretty.
The comments on YouTube are to comment on the video ... what you liked about it, what you disliked about it. If you absolutely hated it, generally nobody cares, and you would have been better off spending the five minutes of your life doing something more productive. And why take another five minutes to write a demeaning comment to everyone else who did like the video or song? That just doesn't make sense to me ...
On that note, and probably going in the complete opposite direction of what I just said, may I please have permission to point out the terribly quality of our music videos today? What happened to the days of Thriller, when Michael Jackson was still black and music videos held a story line and a point and weren't so vague they left you feeling numb and wondering, "Wow ... I can't decide if that was really deep or completely pointless." The vast majority of music videos today are spent simply showing the band playing their instruments, usually off time with the music. The videos then pan to some girl or boy, but usually a girl, who is probably struggling with something, running from something, or arguing with her boyfriend or parents. Oh, and don't even get me STARTED on rap videos. The only budget cost you have in a rap video is the cost of the scantly clad strippers you hire to dance around the rapper while he sits on a cruise ship floating through the Caribbean.
It's all too predictable! What happened to the five minute dance scenes and a gripping plot line, almost making the music video a short film! Thriller the song was nearly six minutes long, but the video was extended to nearly fifteen, with a budget of 800,000 1983 dollars (that's about 1.4 million 2007 dollars.) That's the way it should be.
Another problem is the artists lip movement synced with the audio. It's not. Ever. It's ridiculous that with all our modern technology, and the amount of money we pay the digital guru's who mix these videos, that we can't manage to get the artists lip movement to actually look like they're singing the song. I would suggest that perhaps it's a more difficult task than we give them credit for, but that's simply not the case. Perhaps I should allude again to any Michael Jackson video ... the audio is synced almost perfectly with his mouth. Basically in all old music videos that told a story, the audio was synced so much better than it is in todays MTV hits. What is the deal?!
Music is getting less and less good and more and more repetitively stupid, if you ask me, the videos are showing for it. Too bad the good artists who could dance, sing, and direct/produce good music and music videos have unfortunately undergone too much plastic surgery to even be able to bust a dance move, let alone sing a proper note.
Listen, telling someone they're an "idiot" for what they believe is not going to get them excited about switching to your religion. And since when has your personal relationship with Christ been about how guilty someone made you feel, so you just HAD to become a Christian. Isn't it way more beneficial to slowly but surely show someone God's love through the way you act? I'm pretty sure insulting someone's entire way of life through harsh words isn't a good way to show God's love.
Personally, I don't think you can even begin to "witness" to someone on a YouTube discussion board for a Slipknot music video, so please stop! Do you realize it makes all the fans hate Christian even more than Slipknot (and most of America) already does? Just look at some of the posts following when someone attempts to "witness" in response to a video like that. They're not pretty.
The comments on YouTube are to comment on the video ... what you liked about it, what you disliked about it. If you absolutely hated it, generally nobody cares, and you would have been better off spending the five minutes of your life doing something more productive. And why take another five minutes to write a demeaning comment to everyone else who did like the video or song? That just doesn't make sense to me ...
On that note, and probably going in the complete opposite direction of what I just said, may I please have permission to point out the terribly quality of our music videos today? What happened to the days of Thriller, when Michael Jackson was still black and music videos held a story line and a point and weren't so vague they left you feeling numb and wondering, "Wow ... I can't decide if that was really deep or completely pointless." The vast majority of music videos today are spent simply showing the band playing their instruments, usually off time with the music. The videos then pan to some girl or boy, but usually a girl, who is probably struggling with something, running from something, or arguing with her boyfriend or parents. Oh, and don't even get me STARTED on rap videos. The only budget cost you have in a rap video is the cost of the scantly clad strippers you hire to dance around the rapper while he sits on a cruise ship floating through the Caribbean.
It's all too predictable! What happened to the five minute dance scenes and a gripping plot line, almost making the music video a short film! Thriller the song was nearly six minutes long, but the video was extended to nearly fifteen, with a budget of 800,000 1983 dollars (that's about 1.4 million 2007 dollars.) That's the way it should be.
Another problem is the artists lip movement synced with the audio. It's not. Ever. It's ridiculous that with all our modern technology, and the amount of money we pay the digital guru's who mix these videos, that we can't manage to get the artists lip movement to actually look like they're singing the song. I would suggest that perhaps it's a more difficult task than we give them credit for, but that's simply not the case. Perhaps I should allude again to any Michael Jackson video ... the audio is synced almost perfectly with his mouth. Basically in all old music videos that told a story, the audio was synced so much better than it is in todays MTV hits. What is the deal?!
Music is getting less and less good and more and more repetitively stupid, if you ask me, the videos are showing for it. Too bad the good artists who could dance, sing, and direct/produce good music and music videos have unfortunately undergone too much plastic surgery to even be able to bust a dance move, let alone sing a proper note.
NBC, Quit Embarassing Yourself
10/29/07 05:26 PM Filed in: Technology
| Media
I was perusing my
favorite News Feeds this afternoon on the wonderful
iGoogle, when I came across a topic I hadn't heard
about for a while. How many of you know about about
NBCs little money tantrum? (Show of hands, please.)
Allow me to summarize ...
In late August of 2007, NBC declared it was going to break up with Apple (a.k.a., not renew their video contract with them for their TV Shows, etc.) because they couldn't manage to come to an agreement about pricing policies. The contract was due to end in December of 2007, if I remember correctly, but it may have been the first half of 2008. Instead of waiting out the rest of the contract and selling NBCs TV Shows until the contract ran out, Apple pulled the plug early, yanking all NBC shows from the iTunes store the same week NBC made their harsh statement. This was Apple's way of saying, "We don't need you anyway, NBC. We're going to define the next generation of audio/video, whether you side with us or not."
Apple is already paving the way for the next wave of audio/video communication, especially with the iTunes Music Store and the newly released Apple TV.
So, what was the problem exactly? NBC wanted to try out some "experimental pricing" strategies with Apple. Instead of charing $1.99 for each episode, NBC wanted their shows to cost $4.99. They also wanted users to pay more for "more popular programming." Apple's answer? Nope! Why make our customers pay more for something than they absolutely have to?
This brings us to today, when Zucker states that, "We know that Apple has destroyed the music business -- in terms of pricing -- and if we don’t take control, they’ll do the same thing on the video side." Right. Apple has destroyed the music business. He doesn't actually explain how Apple has done this, which seems pretty crucial to me. The way I see it is, unlike Napster, SpiralFrog, Connect, or Rhapsody, Apple offered a user-friendly alternative to these music stores, while taking down the hyper-aggressive DRM all of those other music stores force you to live with. Apple is currently in the process of transitioning into the same thing with video.
According to Zucker, “We wanted to take one show, it didn’t matter which one it was, and experiment and sell it for $2.99,” he said. “We made that offer for months and they said no.” He makes it sound like he's trying to us (the consumer) a favor! The show to which he was referring was "Heros," the very popular NBC equivalent to Lost ;).
Zucker stated that it wasn't a tough decision to remove their content from the Apple Music Store because they only had made about $15 million from the deal. I'm sorry you escaped with such little profits, greedy NBC.
Another thing I found very interesting was that NBC claimed it should get a portion of the hardware sales Apple was making off of the iPod and iPhone. Um, hello? Your content is strictly software. If someone watches your show on a Sony TV and DVD player, does Sony then owe you a portion of their earnings? Just ... please, stop talking, Zucker!
If you ask me, Zucker is being ridiculous ... I don't think Apple ruined the music business OR the video business, I think Apple actually gave the consumer what they wanted; cheaper, more reasonably priced products!
Well, I have only one thing to say in conclusion. NBC, as a member of the demographic to which you are selling, I would rather purchase your content off of the iTunes Music Store for a lesser price than from any other location from which you jack the prices like nobody's business. So Apple didn't ruin the music (and video) business. I would say they correct music (and video) pricing schemes.
In late August of 2007, NBC declared it was going to break up with Apple (a.k.a., not renew their video contract with them for their TV Shows, etc.) because they couldn't manage to come to an agreement about pricing policies. The contract was due to end in December of 2007, if I remember correctly, but it may have been the first half of 2008. Instead of waiting out the rest of the contract and selling NBCs TV Shows until the contract ran out, Apple pulled the plug early, yanking all NBC shows from the iTunes store the same week NBC made their harsh statement. This was Apple's way of saying, "We don't need you anyway, NBC. We're going to define the next generation of audio/video, whether you side with us or not."
Apple is already paving the way for the next wave of audio/video communication, especially with the iTunes Music Store and the newly released Apple TV.
So, what was the problem exactly? NBC wanted to try out some "experimental pricing" strategies with Apple. Instead of charing $1.99 for each episode, NBC wanted their shows to cost $4.99. They also wanted users to pay more for "more popular programming." Apple's answer? Nope! Why make our customers pay more for something than they absolutely have to?
This brings us to today, when Zucker states that, "We know that Apple has destroyed the music business -- in terms of pricing -- and if we don’t take control, they’ll do the same thing on the video side." Right. Apple has destroyed the music business. He doesn't actually explain how Apple has done this, which seems pretty crucial to me. The way I see it is, unlike Napster, SpiralFrog, Connect, or Rhapsody, Apple offered a user-friendly alternative to these music stores, while taking down the hyper-aggressive DRM all of those other music stores force you to live with. Apple is currently in the process of transitioning into the same thing with video.
According to Zucker, “We wanted to take one show, it didn’t matter which one it was, and experiment and sell it for $2.99,” he said. “We made that offer for months and they said no.” He makes it sound like he's trying to us (the consumer) a favor! The show to which he was referring was "Heros," the very popular NBC equivalent to Lost ;).
Zucker stated that it wasn't a tough decision to remove their content from the Apple Music Store because they only had made about $15 million from the deal. I'm sorry you escaped with such little profits, greedy NBC.
Another thing I found very interesting was that NBC claimed it should get a portion of the hardware sales Apple was making off of the iPod and iPhone. Um, hello? Your content is strictly software. If someone watches your show on a Sony TV and DVD player, does Sony then owe you a portion of their earnings? Just ... please, stop talking, Zucker!
If you ask me, Zucker is being ridiculous ... I don't think Apple ruined the music business OR the video business, I think Apple actually gave the consumer what they wanted; cheaper, more reasonably priced products!
Well, I have only one thing to say in conclusion. NBC, as a member of the demographic to which you are selling, I would rather purchase your content off of the iTunes Music Store for a lesser price than from any other location from which you jack the prices like nobody's business. So Apple didn't ruin the music (and video) business. I would say they correct music (and video) pricing schemes.
The 50 Most Important People on the Web
03/05/07 09:46 AM Filed in: Technology
It's no surprise that
when PC World Magazine did an article on who the top
50 most important people on the web were, the three
executives over at Google ranked in at #1. They
deserve that spot.
Before I go on, please realize this is PC World magazine. Not MacWorld. PC World IS Microsoft biased.
Ranking in at #2 was none other than Steve Jobs.
Sadly, Bill Gates didn't even make the list.
And neither did Al Gore, for that matter.
PC World Magazine Article
Before I go on, please realize this is PC World magazine. Not MacWorld. PC World IS Microsoft biased.
Ranking in at #2 was none other than Steve Jobs.
Sadly, Bill Gates didn't even make the list.
And neither did Al Gore, for that matter.
PC World Magazine Article
I Beg to Differ (Go Apple)
10/18/06 12:02 PM Filed in: Technology
DISCLAIMER:
Before reading this post, please lighten up and
relax. This was meant to be fun/funny. Creston
Flemming over on Facebook decided he didn't like Mac
users proving they were better than him, so he, in
turn, did the exactly the same thing to prove we
weren't better and than he was. I thought that kind
of funny and ironic, and since a lot of his "facts"
were flawed, I felt compelled to shed some more light
on the situation... from the point of view of someone
who has used both Mac, Linux, AND PC (PC over 15
years) and is open to all options. I use a Mac at
home and a PC at work, and the rest of my family also
uses PC. I understand their are pros and cons to both
platforms, but my personal preference is the Mac OS.
I boot Windows XP and Mandriva Linux through
Parallels for programming purposes. Before you fall
out of your chair and shake your fist in furry at me,
remember this is MY opinion. And you don't need to
scream and swear at me back in a comment. There's no
need for harsh words or name calling...
There is one more thing I'd like to say though. Apparently someone thought all of my, so called, "facts" were Mac biased. And I kind of chuckled when I saw that. First of all, facts are facts... if they have a bias, apparently whatever they're biased towards is better because... they're facts, and facts don't lie. Secondly, ALL of my facts are not. A few of them are, but I don't see you going to Apple news sites to get information on when the new Microsoft Zune is coming out. Of course not, you'd have to go to a site that covers Microsoft technology information for that. But finally, what source of information doesn't have a bias? Give me one... even the supposedly unbiased National Public Radio, payed for with your tax dollars, has a severly liberal bias.
So sit back, open your mind, and smile, because this is meant for fun, not to start a nuclear war (or verbal war). And, seriously, those Mac commercials ARE funny... I liked them even before I liked Mac, for the record. I can see why you wouldn't like those though--I get sick of hearing those stupid "vote for me" commercials where the candidates for office don't even talk about their personal convictions, they just tell you how bad their opponent is. Soooo tired of that! But I'm not tired of the Apple commercials yet. I'll let you know when that happens.
Alright, that's all for the disclaimer. Below I have listed the 14 taglines Mac gives for it's computers. Below those are Creston Flemming's responses to those taglines. Below that is my opinion from my experience using a Mac. Below that links to some sites that will provide facts to prove my opinions (or most of them). Enjoy!
------------------------------------------------------
#1—It just works
Hmm…just about every PC in the world works fine out of the box too. This may have been a point back 26 years ago when PCs were kits, but now, it’s standard. As it turns out, the Windows Kernel is very reliable, all Windows crashes are caused by people installing bad software. The same thing will happen to a mac for the record.
Opinions:
Well, that actually depends on what you plan on doing with your system. Personally, when I used Windows previous, as soon as I ever bought a brand new machine, straight out of the box I always did a fresh format. Especially if you ordered your PC from Dell or some such company. It's just sick how much extra crap comes loaded on the machine. A few extra programs come with a Mac too, however, unlike a Windows PC, all of the programs that come preinstalled on any Mac OS are made by Apple. On top of that, the software that comes on a Mac is actually the full verison of the program, not an annoying 30 day trial. You know that if you don't do a fresh format of you're PC as soon as you get it, you probably never will. That 30 day trial will run out and the program will just stay on your PC. Obviously, you can't use it without pay the $150 to get a license, but taking the 5 minutes out of your day to uninstall it is just too much work! Thanks to Apple's integrated apps, however, if you don't want that program on there (GarageBand for instance), all you have to do is drag and drop it into the recycling bin. It's gone in less than 5 seconds. If you think there's still fragments of that program left somewhere on your hard drive, you can install AppZapper and confidently uninstall all yours apps... but you really don't need to.
You're way out in left field in stating that "all Windows crashes are caused by people installing bad software." If there was one thing I learned in Economics class, it's that if event A precedes even B and C, even A may or may not have caused events B and C. Not enough information is provided. You can't drop a statement like that and blame every single crash on the Windows OS from this point forward on the user. Granted, I think a great deal of crashes and errors and lock-ups on a computer are user related, but I'm not taking all of the blame off of the OS. You have no idea how many times my Windows programs would crash in the middle of my work, for no apparent reason. All I was doing was typing! Or maybe you do have an idea... I'm sure it's happened to you too! A friend said to me the other day after hearing I had switched to Mac, "Is it true that Safari is really unreliable and crashes all the time? I've heard that about Macs." I said, "Safari has crashed on me once since I got my Mac. It was mostly my fault too. Mac apps crash on occassion, true enough, but I wouldn't say that they crash 'all the time,' or that they crash anymore than Windows programs. How many times do you see 'The program has closed unexpectedly. Would you like to send Microsoft and error report?' in a day? Too many for me, that's why I switched to Mac." So, to state it properly, you should probably say "most Windows crashes are caused by people installing bad software." But what would a world be like if that bad software didn't exist in the first place for us to accidently (or intentionally) download? Welcome to Mac OS! False advertising is against the law; Apple speaks the truth!
Facts:
InfoWorld.com - It Just Works
MacNN.com - Consumer Reports for Mac
------------------------------------------------------
#2—You can make amazing stuff
This advertises iLife ’06, Apple’s suite of software. Most venders will include similar software, if not more powerful applications. Many new PCs include Nero, Pinnacle, photo editing apps, and various other applications that do much of the same tasks as iLife ’06. Windows Vista has all of the functionality of iLife ’06 included in the Premium versions.
Opinions:
You can do amazing stuff! iLife '06 is a beautiful package that comes standard with any current version of Mac OS. Most vendors will include similar software, ir not more powerful. Unfortuanetly, they only include a 30 day trial. It's also 3rd party software. iLife is made by Apple, so you know it's good. It's all a full version for FREE! I can't speak for Windows Vista, I haven't seen it yet because... oh, right, it's not out yet. So it's really not fair to compare an unreleased OSes features to the features of an OS from last year, is it?
Facts:
I don't need facts on this one. Go onto your Windows machine and open any of the software that came with your OS. It will say "you have 0 out of 30 days remaining on this trial period." Point and fact.
------------------------------------------------------
#3—Design that turns heads
Apple computers have interesting designs. However, these designs have major shortcomings. Apple notebooks use soldered processors, preventing upgrades. Socket based CPUs have been the norm since the P4 came out in late 2000. Also, Apple hardware like the iMac have limited space for upgrades and integrated components are more likely to fail compared to independent subsystems. Apple’s design can be compared to some car designs—such as the DeLorean DMC-1 (the famous car from the Back to the Future Trilogy). This car had an amazing exterior design, but the car was an ultimate failure due to it’s lackluster performance and high performance to price ratio. Anyone without unlimited funds would chose something more utilitarian than a Mac.
Opinions:
Are we even talking about the internals right now? I was aware this statement was talking about the beauty of the externals on the machines. Even someone who hates the Mac OS and hardware that comes inside the machine will admit that they look beautiful. Anyone who appreciates computers can appreciate the beauty of the sleek, rounded design of the apple laptops and desktops. The perfect white, black, or even silver now.
If you wish to talk about interals, OK, I can do that too. It's true, Mac's aren't as customizable as PCs. Choose your arguments though. Some people claim they just want a computer that will do simple school-related tasks for them and get on the internet. Then they say they don't want a Mac because it's not possible to upgrade the hardware. Well, that's simply not true in the first place. It is more difficult to upgrade a Mac, but it is hardly impossible--especially on the Mac Pro's. I like to put it this way: "A PC is like a Yugo you can soup-up with lots of extra add-on parts. A Mac is like a Porsche that comes loaded from the factory." Who doesn't want a Porsche? If you want to know more about the design of any Apple machine, the bullet proof material they're made out of, the genius thought put into the exterior and interior design of them, click on the link to the Apple site below. I would like to point out that a downfall to all laptops, Apple or not, is that they are highly integrated. The Mac Pro is quite a different story. As luck would have it, PCs have limited space as well--5 PCI slots...
Integrated components aren't actually more likely to fail, they're just harder to replace if they do fail. So I guess that's where Murphy's Law's could come in, right? "Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong." I haven't had anything go wrong with my Mac yet though...
Facts:
MacOSXHints.com - Quote
Apple.com - Design That Turns Heads
Murphys-Layws.com
------------------------------------------------------
#4—11400 viruses? Not on a mac
This argument is flawed. The reason there are few viruses on macs has to with issues of user share. Less than 2% of people use mac compared to over 90% for Windows. This is a matter of logistics rather than security. Systematic, a leading computer security provider, states that OS X is less secure than Windows XP. Apple gives its users a false sense of security. Apple users often neglect basic security practices, such as running a firewall, using caution when opening emails, and running antivirus software. Apple computers ship with the built in firewall disabled, while Windows XP ships with in on by default. Widows also advises users to run security software. As the Apple user share grows, there will be more and more threats and mac users will not be prepared.
Opinions:
The statistic has actually risen to 5% of the world using the Mac OS, and predicted to rise more in the near future due to the release of the Mac Pro. In fact, according to Steve Jobs in his Keynote Address at WWDC in 2006, Apple laptop sales have had a 50% increase this year! I did a search but couldn't find that statement by Systematic anywhere. To be perfectly honest, there are viruses for Mac just as there are for PC. They're different viruses, but they still exist. I've never actually run into any, and most people using a Mac probably never will, but they're out there! So to say "there aren't viruses for a Mac" would be a lie. But the ad clearly states "Mac's don't get viruses." So, obviously, while they are there, you just don't get them unless you do something completely ridiculous... which I can't think of anything right now. As the Appl user share grows, there will be more and more threats to Mac users. Thank goodness they do make Norton for Mac. I don't use it, but maybe someday I'll actually need to! Right now I'm free to run my OS without an antivirus programming hogging all my memory running in the background!
Facts:
TheRegister.co.uk - 90% Windows, 5% Mac, 5% Other
MacNewsWorld.com - Allure Of Mac Pro May Move Windows Fans To Convert
Apple.com - Apple WWDC 2006
TheAppleBlog.com - Hardly Any Viruses On A Mac
------------------------------------------------------
#5—Next year’s OS today
I cannot help but laugh at Apple’s argument here. First off, their widgets are stolen from an application known as Konfabulator, which is available for both Windows and Mac. An RSS reader? IE7 has this as does Mozilla Firefox. Apple did not invent RSS either. Tabbed browsing? IE7. Video conferencing? AIM or Windows Messenger. Parental Controls? I don’t support that kind of software but there are plenty of applications around and Windows Vista will have it included. Easy DIY scripting with Automator? Windows Scripting Host is much more powerful and has been included since Windows ’98. Mail with built-in spam blocking? Outlook Express has this as well. So all of Apple’s “innovations” are just rip-offs of other applications.
Opinions:
Konfabulator (now called Yahoo! Widgets) was a program invented in 2000 by Arlo Rose. Ironically, it was originally invented for Macintosh (hmm... ). Later, a Windows version was created. First off, I don't even know why you brought this up. Mac did not claim to be the original creator of this idea. As a fact, Mac simply popularized it. More importantly, Mac actually integrated it into the OS, that way it wouldn't be a memory hog running in the background constantly. (It does run in the background constantly, but it's not a memory hog. So I guess that's a contradiction... ) If you want to play that game though, what are these Gadgets I hear about that are apparently coming with Windows Vista?
You're correct in stateing IE7 supports RSS, just like Apple's Safari. But let's go back to the original statement. "Next year's OS today." Right. Well, IE7 was released on... oh wait, it actually hasn't been released yet. Just a Release Candidate. That was released on January 31st, 2006. Safari 2.0, the first version to include the RSS feature, was released on April 29th, 2005. Well, not quite a year, but close. The final release of IE7 is expected by the end of 2007. Mozilla Firefox? Well, Mozilla isn't owned by Windows or Apple, so it's really not fair to compare 3rd party software when we're talking about the OS right now. Firefox is made for both Apple and Windows. Nice try though. So if Apple had it first... who's ripping who off?
(Fun fact: People can argue about whether it was Mozilla or Opera who had the first tabbed browsing system, but it was neither. It was a no-name browser (Netscaptor) who first put the idea onto the web in 1997. Mozilla supported the capabilites in 2000, I believe, and Opera didn't get around to it until 2001. Safari released their tabbed browser in early 2003, and IE7, finally released in late 2006, has tabbing capabilities. Interesting that, once again, Apple released theirs 3 years prior to Microsoft. So, yes, even though Apple and Microsoft have the same features NOW, Apple released it first (but they in no way claim to be the original creators). That's another reason Reason #5 makes sense.)
Funny that you should bring up NetMeeting. That program is so frustrating! It's hideous and lacking in features. Not only that, it's a video client... that's all! It isn't meant to be a chat client, so don't compare it to one. iChat includes the features of an audio/video/chat client. It's very reliable and user friendly. You're right, Windows Messenger also includes these features. I can run both Windows Messenger and Microsoft Messenger on my Mac though, so I'm at no disadvantage there. AIM is made for Mac too, but I despise AIM, and it's even crappier on Mac than it is on PC.
If you do a little bit of research you'll learn that Apple Mail evolved from a program called NeXTMail. This program ran on the NEXTSTEP OS. NeXT Computers, Inc. was owned by Steve Jobs at the time. Sound familiar? In 1992, Steve Jobs announced the release of NeXTMail. Microsoft release Outlook Express with the release of Windows 95. You do the math, that's 3 years after NeXTMail. NeXTMail became Apple Mail in 1997 when Apple purchased NeXT Computers, Inc. and also won Steve Jobs as their CEO in the deal.
As you may have noticed, Windows is trying to imitate Apple's slick design of Tiger OS with Windows Vista. They're doing a pretty decent job too. It only took them 5 years to release it.
Facts:
Yahoo.com - Yahoo! Widgets
Apple.com - Dashboard (Widgets)
Wikipedia.org - IE7
Wikipedia.org - Safari
WordPress.com - Steve Jobs Shows Off NeXTMail
Wikipedia.org - NEXTSTEP
Wikipedia.org - Outlook Express
------------------------------------------------------
#6—The latest Intel chips
WHAT? Core Duo is hardly Apple only. Every major vender carries it. Nice try, Apple.
Opinions:
True, but Apple didn't claim to be the only company with Intel chips, did it? No, it claimed to be the company with the latest Intel chips. You must recall back to 2005 when Apple was the first company in history to release a Intel Core Duo processor. Apple had a deal with Intel. Windows machines didn't come out with the Intel Core Duo chipset until after Apple had released theirs. Of course, now Core Duo's come standard with almost any machine. The point is, Apple started the trend. That's where that little word latest comes in. But I see where you were coming from.
Facts:
Wikipedia.org - Intel Core
Wikipedia.org - Processor Architecture
Wikipedia.org - Apple Intel Transition
Intel.com - Intel Duo Core Processors
------------------------------------------------------
#7—Instant Video Chats
iChat AV isn’t the only application that allows video conferencing. It’s not the first either. Windows has had NetMeeting, a
video conferencing app since Windows 98SE (1999) and Windows Messenger has this functionality as well. Many notebooks have built in webcams. Apple forces people to buy a webcam though, even if one is not desired. Users should have the choice if they would like to have one.
Opinions:
I already said this, so I'll just say it again!
Funny that you should bring up NetMeeting. That program is so frustrating! It's hideous and lacking in features. Not only that, it's a video client... that's all! It isn't meant to be a chat client, so don't compare it to one. iChat includes the features of an audio/video/chat client. It's very reliable and user friendly. You're right, Windows Messenger also includes these features. I can run both Windows Messenger and Microsoft Messenger on my Mac though, so I'm at no disadvantage there. AIM is made for Mac too, but I despise AIM, and it's even crappier on Mac than it is on PC.
Many notebooks do have webcams... ALL Mac laptops have webcams built it! I do agree about the choice, however. It'd be nice to have that customizeable. You might save $50 or something. But I wanted one, so I don't mind.
Facts:
None needed for this one.
------------------------------------------------------
#8—More fun with Photos
iPhoto is the application being advertised in this point. Again, many venders chose to include this type of software, so Apple is hardly alone in this. One can also download Adobe Photoshop Album for free. Also, a cross platform program is available called the GIMP, which is many times more powerful than iPhoto or Adobe Photoshop. Again, much of the functionality of iPhoto is included in Windows Vista.
Opinions:
iPhoto is far superior to Adobe Photoshop Album, but it is far inferior to Picasa (unfortuanetly only made for Windows currently). I don't use iPhoto, I just open up my Pictures folder when I want to browse my pictures, but it is a decent program. Considering it's free and if you don't want it you just drag it to the recycling bin, it's not that big of a deal. It's worth nothing that Adobe Photoshop Album retails at $89.99.
Again, many vendors include this type of free software as a 30 day trial version. After those 30 days all the software does is hog your disk space--not that big of a deal with today's hard drives, but it clutters the start menu.
Facts:
Adobe.com - Adobe Photoshop Album
Apple.com - iPhoto
Google.com - Picasa
------------------------------------------------------
#9—One Click Websites
Computers running Microsoft Office, which nearly every Windows user owns a copy of, include both Microsoft Word and Microsoft Frontpage. These powerful WYSIWYG applications are vastly superior to the included Apple apps. Popular blogging sites such as blog.com and livejournal.com have web-based tools to accomplish the same tasks. All webcams come with easy to use software that records the video to a standard file which can be uploaded. Sorry, Apple. If you need additional functionality over the online blogging tools, then you are an advanced user and likely do your own coding, and wouldn’t desire a HTML generator.
Opinions:
Actually, this is talking about iWeb, but you wouldn't know that if you didn't use a Mac, and I presume you don't and haven't. Microsoft Frontpage is evil and hardly powerful. Go with Macromedia Dreamweaver, a cross-platform WYSIWYG editor. iWeb is alright, but you have to have a .Mac account to use it and I didn't want to pay for that. I did a drag and drop and uninstalled it from my machine... that was easy! iWeb's source code is rather hideous, much like Microsoft Frontpage, so I don't recommend it.
I'm not sure why you decided to compare a blog to a website, but there is a difference. This is a blog. A website is like Microsoft.com... content, not opinions and journals. If you're using Microsoft Frontpage to create a blog you might want to ask for you money back :). It was also a bad choice to compare iWeb to Microsoft Fontpage, but that's ok, you didn't know. Check your facts before you report :).
Facts:
Apple.com - iWeb
Microsoft.com - Microsoft Frontpage
BusinessLogs.com - iWeb Generated Source Code Is Awful
------------------------------------------------------
#10—Amazing Podcasts
There is one more thing I'd like to say though. Apparently someone thought all of my, so called, "facts" were Mac biased. And I kind of chuckled when I saw that. First of all, facts are facts... if they have a bias, apparently whatever they're biased towards is better because... they're facts, and facts don't lie. Secondly, ALL of my facts are not. A few of them are, but I don't see you going to Apple news sites to get information on when the new Microsoft Zune is coming out. Of course not, you'd have to go to a site that covers Microsoft technology information for that. But finally, what source of information doesn't have a bias? Give me one... even the supposedly unbiased National Public Radio, payed for with your tax dollars, has a severly liberal bias.
So sit back, open your mind, and smile, because this is meant for fun, not to start a nuclear war (or verbal war). And, seriously, those Mac commercials ARE funny... I liked them even before I liked Mac, for the record. I can see why you wouldn't like those though--I get sick of hearing those stupid "vote for me" commercials where the candidates for office don't even talk about their personal convictions, they just tell you how bad their opponent is. Soooo tired of that! But I'm not tired of the Apple commercials yet. I'll let you know when that happens.
Alright, that's all for the disclaimer. Below I have listed the 14 taglines Mac gives for it's computers. Below those are Creston Flemming's responses to those taglines. Below that is my opinion from my experience using a Mac. Below that links to some sites that will provide facts to prove my opinions (or most of them). Enjoy!
------------------------------------------------------
#1—It just works
Hmm…just about every PC in the world works fine out of the box too. This may have been a point back 26 years ago when PCs were kits, but now, it’s standard. As it turns out, the Windows Kernel is very reliable, all Windows crashes are caused by people installing bad software. The same thing will happen to a mac for the record.
Opinions:
Well, that actually depends on what you plan on doing with your system. Personally, when I used Windows previous, as soon as I ever bought a brand new machine, straight out of the box I always did a fresh format. Especially if you ordered your PC from Dell or some such company. It's just sick how much extra crap comes loaded on the machine. A few extra programs come with a Mac too, however, unlike a Windows PC, all of the programs that come preinstalled on any Mac OS are made by Apple. On top of that, the software that comes on a Mac is actually the full verison of the program, not an annoying 30 day trial. You know that if you don't do a fresh format of you're PC as soon as you get it, you probably never will. That 30 day trial will run out and the program will just stay on your PC. Obviously, you can't use it without pay the $150 to get a license, but taking the 5 minutes out of your day to uninstall it is just too much work! Thanks to Apple's integrated apps, however, if you don't want that program on there (GarageBand for instance), all you have to do is drag and drop it into the recycling bin. It's gone in less than 5 seconds. If you think there's still fragments of that program left somewhere on your hard drive, you can install AppZapper and confidently uninstall all yours apps... but you really don't need to.
You're way out in left field in stating that "all Windows crashes are caused by people installing bad software." If there was one thing I learned in Economics class, it's that if event A precedes even B and C, even A may or may not have caused events B and C. Not enough information is provided. You can't drop a statement like that and blame every single crash on the Windows OS from this point forward on the user. Granted, I think a great deal of crashes and errors and lock-ups on a computer are user related, but I'm not taking all of the blame off of the OS. You have no idea how many times my Windows programs would crash in the middle of my work, for no apparent reason. All I was doing was typing! Or maybe you do have an idea... I'm sure it's happened to you too! A friend said to me the other day after hearing I had switched to Mac, "Is it true that Safari is really unreliable and crashes all the time? I've heard that about Macs." I said, "Safari has crashed on me once since I got my Mac. It was mostly my fault too. Mac apps crash on occassion, true enough, but I wouldn't say that they crash 'all the time,' or that they crash anymore than Windows programs. How many times do you see 'The program has closed unexpectedly. Would you like to send Microsoft and error report?' in a day? Too many for me, that's why I switched to Mac." So, to state it properly, you should probably say "most Windows crashes are caused by people installing bad software." But what would a world be like if that bad software didn't exist in the first place for us to accidently (or intentionally) download? Welcome to Mac OS! False advertising is against the law; Apple speaks the truth!
Facts:
InfoWorld.com - It Just Works
MacNN.com - Consumer Reports for Mac
------------------------------------------------------
#2—You can make amazing stuff
This advertises iLife ’06, Apple’s suite of software. Most venders will include similar software, if not more powerful applications. Many new PCs include Nero, Pinnacle, photo editing apps, and various other applications that do much of the same tasks as iLife ’06. Windows Vista has all of the functionality of iLife ’06 included in the Premium versions.
Opinions:
You can do amazing stuff! iLife '06 is a beautiful package that comes standard with any current version of Mac OS. Most vendors will include similar software, ir not more powerful. Unfortuanetly, they only include a 30 day trial. It's also 3rd party software. iLife is made by Apple, so you know it's good. It's all a full version for FREE! I can't speak for Windows Vista, I haven't seen it yet because... oh, right, it's not out yet. So it's really not fair to compare an unreleased OSes features to the features of an OS from last year, is it?
Facts:
I don't need facts on this one. Go onto your Windows machine and open any of the software that came with your OS. It will say "you have 0 out of 30 days remaining on this trial period." Point and fact.
------------------------------------------------------
#3—Design that turns heads
Apple computers have interesting designs. However, these designs have major shortcomings. Apple notebooks use soldered processors, preventing upgrades. Socket based CPUs have been the norm since the P4 came out in late 2000. Also, Apple hardware like the iMac have limited space for upgrades and integrated components are more likely to fail compared to independent subsystems. Apple’s design can be compared to some car designs—such as the DeLorean DMC-1 (the famous car from the Back to the Future Trilogy). This car had an amazing exterior design, but the car was an ultimate failure due to it’s lackluster performance and high performance to price ratio. Anyone without unlimited funds would chose something more utilitarian than a Mac.
Opinions:
Are we even talking about the internals right now? I was aware this statement was talking about the beauty of the externals on the machines. Even someone who hates the Mac OS and hardware that comes inside the machine will admit that they look beautiful. Anyone who appreciates computers can appreciate the beauty of the sleek, rounded design of the apple laptops and desktops. The perfect white, black, or even silver now.
If you wish to talk about interals, OK, I can do that too. It's true, Mac's aren't as customizable as PCs. Choose your arguments though. Some people claim they just want a computer that will do simple school-related tasks for them and get on the internet. Then they say they don't want a Mac because it's not possible to upgrade the hardware. Well, that's simply not true in the first place. It is more difficult to upgrade a Mac, but it is hardly impossible--especially on the Mac Pro's. I like to put it this way: "A PC is like a Yugo you can soup-up with lots of extra add-on parts. A Mac is like a Porsche that comes loaded from the factory." Who doesn't want a Porsche? If you want to know more about the design of any Apple machine, the bullet proof material they're made out of, the genius thought put into the exterior and interior design of them, click on the link to the Apple site below. I would like to point out that a downfall to all laptops, Apple or not, is that they are highly integrated. The Mac Pro is quite a different story. As luck would have it, PCs have limited space as well--5 PCI slots...
Integrated components aren't actually more likely to fail, they're just harder to replace if they do fail. So I guess that's where Murphy's Law's could come in, right? "Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong." I haven't had anything go wrong with my Mac yet though...
Facts:
MacOSXHints.com - Quote
Apple.com - Design That Turns Heads
Murphys-Layws.com
------------------------------------------------------
#4—11400 viruses? Not on a mac
This argument is flawed. The reason there are few viruses on macs has to with issues of user share. Less than 2% of people use mac compared to over 90% for Windows. This is a matter of logistics rather than security. Systematic, a leading computer security provider, states that OS X is less secure than Windows XP. Apple gives its users a false sense of security. Apple users often neglect basic security practices, such as running a firewall, using caution when opening emails, and running antivirus software. Apple computers ship with the built in firewall disabled, while Windows XP ships with in on by default. Widows also advises users to run security software. As the Apple user share grows, there will be more and more threats and mac users will not be prepared.
Opinions:
The statistic has actually risen to 5% of the world using the Mac OS, and predicted to rise more in the near future due to the release of the Mac Pro. In fact, according to Steve Jobs in his Keynote Address at WWDC in 2006, Apple laptop sales have had a 50% increase this year! I did a search but couldn't find that statement by Systematic anywhere. To be perfectly honest, there are viruses for Mac just as there are for PC. They're different viruses, but they still exist. I've never actually run into any, and most people using a Mac probably never will, but they're out there! So to say "there aren't viruses for a Mac" would be a lie. But the ad clearly states "Mac's don't get viruses." So, obviously, while they are there, you just don't get them unless you do something completely ridiculous... which I can't think of anything right now. As the Appl user share grows, there will be more and more threats to Mac users. Thank goodness they do make Norton for Mac. I don't use it, but maybe someday I'll actually need to! Right now I'm free to run my OS without an antivirus programming hogging all my memory running in the background!
Facts:
TheRegister.co.uk - 90% Windows, 5% Mac, 5% Other
MacNewsWorld.com - Allure Of Mac Pro May Move Windows Fans To Convert
Apple.com - Apple WWDC 2006
TheAppleBlog.com - Hardly Any Viruses On A Mac
------------------------------------------------------
#5—Next year’s OS today
I cannot help but laugh at Apple’s argument here. First off, their widgets are stolen from an application known as Konfabulator, which is available for both Windows and Mac. An RSS reader? IE7 has this as does Mozilla Firefox. Apple did not invent RSS either. Tabbed browsing? IE7. Video conferencing? AIM or Windows Messenger. Parental Controls? I don’t support that kind of software but there are plenty of applications around and Windows Vista will have it included. Easy DIY scripting with Automator? Windows Scripting Host is much more powerful and has been included since Windows ’98. Mail with built-in spam blocking? Outlook Express has this as well. So all of Apple’s “innovations” are just rip-offs of other applications.
Opinions:
Konfabulator (now called Yahoo! Widgets) was a program invented in 2000 by Arlo Rose. Ironically, it was originally invented for Macintosh (hmm... ). Later, a Windows version was created. First off, I don't even know why you brought this up. Mac did not claim to be the original creator of this idea. As a fact, Mac simply popularized it. More importantly, Mac actually integrated it into the OS, that way it wouldn't be a memory hog running in the background constantly. (It does run in the background constantly, but it's not a memory hog. So I guess that's a contradiction... ) If you want to play that game though, what are these Gadgets I hear about that are apparently coming with Windows Vista?
You're correct in stateing IE7 supports RSS, just like Apple's Safari. But let's go back to the original statement. "Next year's OS today." Right. Well, IE7 was released on... oh wait, it actually hasn't been released yet. Just a Release Candidate. That was released on January 31st, 2006. Safari 2.0, the first version to include the RSS feature, was released on April 29th, 2005. Well, not quite a year, but close. The final release of IE7 is expected by the end of 2007. Mozilla Firefox? Well, Mozilla isn't owned by Windows or Apple, so it's really not fair to compare 3rd party software when we're talking about the OS right now. Firefox is made for both Apple and Windows. Nice try though. So if Apple had it first... who's ripping who off?
(Fun fact: People can argue about whether it was Mozilla or Opera who had the first tabbed browsing system, but it was neither. It was a no-name browser (Netscaptor) who first put the idea onto the web in 1997. Mozilla supported the capabilites in 2000, I believe, and Opera didn't get around to it until 2001. Safari released their tabbed browser in early 2003, and IE7, finally released in late 2006, has tabbing capabilities. Interesting that, once again, Apple released theirs 3 years prior to Microsoft. So, yes, even though Apple and Microsoft have the same features NOW, Apple released it first (but they in no way claim to be the original creators). That's another reason Reason #5 makes sense.)
Funny that you should bring up NetMeeting. That program is so frustrating! It's hideous and lacking in features. Not only that, it's a video client... that's all! It isn't meant to be a chat client, so don't compare it to one. iChat includes the features of an audio/video/chat client. It's very reliable and user friendly. You're right, Windows Messenger also includes these features. I can run both Windows Messenger and Microsoft Messenger on my Mac though, so I'm at no disadvantage there. AIM is made for Mac too, but I despise AIM, and it's even crappier on Mac than it is on PC.
If you do a little bit of research you'll learn that Apple Mail evolved from a program called NeXTMail. This program ran on the NEXTSTEP OS. NeXT Computers, Inc. was owned by Steve Jobs at the time. Sound familiar? In 1992, Steve Jobs announced the release of NeXTMail. Microsoft release Outlook Express with the release of Windows 95. You do the math, that's 3 years after NeXTMail. NeXTMail became Apple Mail in 1997 when Apple purchased NeXT Computers, Inc. and also won Steve Jobs as their CEO in the deal.
As you may have noticed, Windows is trying to imitate Apple's slick design of Tiger OS with Windows Vista. They're doing a pretty decent job too. It only took them 5 years to release it.
Facts:
Yahoo.com - Yahoo! Widgets
Apple.com - Dashboard (Widgets)
Wikipedia.org - IE7
Wikipedia.org - Safari
WordPress.com - Steve Jobs Shows Off NeXTMail
Wikipedia.org - NEXTSTEP
Wikipedia.org - Outlook Express
------------------------------------------------------
#6—The latest Intel chips
WHAT? Core Duo is hardly Apple only. Every major vender carries it. Nice try, Apple.
Opinions:
True, but Apple didn't claim to be the only company with Intel chips, did it? No, it claimed to be the company with the latest Intel chips. You must recall back to 2005 when Apple was the first company in history to release a Intel Core Duo processor. Apple had a deal with Intel. Windows machines didn't come out with the Intel Core Duo chipset until after Apple had released theirs. Of course, now Core Duo's come standard with almost any machine. The point is, Apple started the trend. That's where that little word latest comes in. But I see where you were coming from.
Facts:
Wikipedia.org - Intel Core
Wikipedia.org - Processor Architecture
Wikipedia.org - Apple Intel Transition
Intel.com - Intel Duo Core Processors
------------------------------------------------------
#7—Instant Video Chats
iChat AV isn’t the only application that allows video conferencing. It’s not the first either. Windows has had NetMeeting, a
video conferencing app since Windows 98SE (1999) and Windows Messenger has this functionality as well. Many notebooks have built in webcams. Apple forces people to buy a webcam though, even if one is not desired. Users should have the choice if they would like to have one.
Opinions:
I already said this, so I'll just say it again!
Funny that you should bring up NetMeeting. That program is so frustrating! It's hideous and lacking in features. Not only that, it's a video client... that's all! It isn't meant to be a chat client, so don't compare it to one. iChat includes the features of an audio/video/chat client. It's very reliable and user friendly. You're right, Windows Messenger also includes these features. I can run both Windows Messenger and Microsoft Messenger on my Mac though, so I'm at no disadvantage there. AIM is made for Mac too, but I despise AIM, and it's even crappier on Mac than it is on PC.
Many notebooks do have webcams... ALL Mac laptops have webcams built it! I do agree about the choice, however. It'd be nice to have that customizeable. You might save $50 or something. But I wanted one, so I don't mind.
Facts:
None needed for this one.
------------------------------------------------------
#8—More fun with Photos
iPhoto is the application being advertised in this point. Again, many venders chose to include this type of software, so Apple is hardly alone in this. One can also download Adobe Photoshop Album for free. Also, a cross platform program is available called the GIMP, which is many times more powerful than iPhoto or Adobe Photoshop. Again, much of the functionality of iPhoto is included in Windows Vista.
Opinions:
iPhoto is far superior to Adobe Photoshop Album, but it is far inferior to Picasa (unfortuanetly only made for Windows currently). I don't use iPhoto, I just open up my Pictures folder when I want to browse my pictures, but it is a decent program. Considering it's free and if you don't want it you just drag it to the recycling bin, it's not that big of a deal. It's worth nothing that Adobe Photoshop Album retails at $89.99.
Again, many vendors include this type of free software as a 30 day trial version. After those 30 days all the software does is hog your disk space--not that big of a deal with today's hard drives, but it clutters the start menu.
Facts:
Adobe.com - Adobe Photoshop Album
Apple.com - iPhoto
Google.com - Picasa
------------------------------------------------------
#9—One Click Websites
Computers running Microsoft Office, which nearly every Windows user owns a copy of, include both Microsoft Word and Microsoft Frontpage. These powerful WYSIWYG applications are vastly superior to the included Apple apps. Popular blogging sites such as blog.com and livejournal.com have web-based tools to accomplish the same tasks. All webcams come with easy to use software that records the video to a standard file which can be uploaded. Sorry, Apple. If you need additional functionality over the online blogging tools, then you are an advanced user and likely do your own coding, and wouldn’t desire a HTML generator.
Opinions:
Actually, this is talking about iWeb, but you wouldn't know that if you didn't use a Mac, and I presume you don't and haven't. Microsoft Frontpage is evil and hardly powerful. Go with Macromedia Dreamweaver, a cross-platform WYSIWYG editor. iWeb is alright, but you have to have a .Mac account to use it and I didn't want to pay for that. I did a drag and drop and uninstalled it from my machine... that was easy! iWeb's source code is rather hideous, much like Microsoft Frontpage, so I don't recommend it.
I'm not sure why you decided to compare a blog to a website, but there is a difference. This is a blog. A website is like Microsoft.com... content, not opinions and journals. If you're using Microsoft Frontpage to create a blog you might want to ask for you money back :). It was also a bad choice to compare iWeb to Microsoft Fontpage, but that's ok, you didn't know. Check your facts before you report :).
Facts:
Apple.com - iWeb
Microsoft.com - Microsoft Frontpage
BusinessLogs.com - iWeb Generated Source Code Is Awful
------------------------------------------------------
#10—Amazing Podcasts