The rantings of a beautiful mind

The Good Sex Network

2010-07-29T07:10:00.000-07:00

Check us out:

Remembrance Day

2007-11-11T15:33:00.001-08:00

On this Remembrance Day, I'd like to remind you all of a few things...

I'm watching Flags of Our Fathers on Cable 302 (TMN) and it reminds me of the fact that the Americans were once a good and honourable people who fought valiantly for our freedom. They were loved and revered. They were heroes to the world.

Today, the Americans are no longer loved and revered. During the first year after 9/11, they had the sympathy and support of the entire free world. Then they squandered their moral currency away...

They waged war in the absence of imminent threat (so-called "preemptive action"). They waged war on false pretenses (Weapons of Mass Destruction; responsibility for 9/11; humanitarian action against genocide). They waged war out of economic greed (petroleum; pressure from the military industrial complex).

Today, the Americans have no honour. And without the moral high ground, it is arguable whether they are still a good people. If we are to remember anything on Remembrance Day, it is that war should never be entered into lightly. And the Iraq War is one of the least justifiable wars in history.

On a related note, I saw a piece on CBC Sunday this morning about Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder among the Iraq War veterans. It is estimated that 15 percent of the troops in Iraq will return with PTSD. So even if you don't get killed during the war, your life may still be torn asunder by it. PTSD is a terrible, terrible illness that most of us have absolutely no appreciation for. The documentary opened my eyes wide open.

The toll on the Americans will be enormous...

Mac is safer than PC

2007-06-07T07:23:00.000-07:00

This is an excellent editorial on the security of Macs versus PCs:

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2140674,00.asp

Some while back, a friend of mine bragged that he does all the right things to make his Windows machine 100 percent safe from viruses. He is quite right...it is certainly possible to make your Windows machine bulletproof.

However, he missed an obvious point:

Most Windows users do not know how to secure their machines, aside from following a few simple recommendations, such as install antivirus and antispyware. No amount of education is going to change this.

Note that this is simply a statement of practical reality. Of the hundreds of millions of PCs out there, a large proportion are under-secured.

Put simply, for most of these users, they'd be far, far safer if they were using Mac. This is not idle speculation. Hell, it's not even an educated guess. It is an absolute statement of fact! It would take someone whose head was shoved way up his ass to even try to refute this.

As of this very moment, a Mac user enjoys greater security than a PC user, for all the reasons that we've discussed. Some have suggested this may change in the future, and as I don't have a crystal ball I can't argue against the suggestion.

But even if Apple faces greater challenges in the future with regards to security, it is not a foregone conclusion that they will fail to correct the situation. They may struggle or they may not, but one way or the other the Mac will continue to be safer than a PC. Only Mac-haters will look at the worst case scenario and write off the Mac platform. For that, shame on you.

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2140308,00.asp

At any rate, in spite of what Apple still hasn't done with regard to security, there are Mac exploits, but there are no mass Mac exploits.

Is this merely a function of Apple's small market share? Mogull grants that yes, the security shortcomings he sees in Mac OS X would mean that Apple might be having some problems if it had Microsoft's market share. Still, it's a pretty secure platform, he said. "It's not like it's wide open." Even after the CanSecWest security conference, when hackers broke into a Mac in a Pwn-2-Own contest, Apple had the vulnerability patched within eight days, he noted.

"Macs are not the bastions of security a lot of people would have you believe, but it's not like Apple's doing everything wrong, like some of the hacker types would have you believe," Mogull said.

Feel safer...buy a Mac.

DRM bites us in the ass!

2007-06-04T15:56:00.000-07:00

I've been saying all along that the DRM in Windows Vista was bad for consumers. I said that it may take some time for consumers to realize how Vista will limit them in their flexibility and fair use rights. Well, here's the first concrete example of how Vista's DRM is biting us in the ass...!

Hi Richard,

Thank you for your email. Digital Rights Management was activated on all set-top boxes earlier this year. This is a contractual requirement that Rogers has from all programmers in order to manage the transfer of programming to a Personal Computer or distribution over the Internet.

Regards,
Nancy Cottenden
Corporate Communications.

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Eng
Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2007 9:49 AM
To: Cable Media Relations
Subject: Rogers Cable Media Relations

*** Rogers Cable Media Relations ***

Account Number -->

Name --> Richard Eng

Subject --> Rogers Cable Media Relations

Comments --> I have recently learned that Rogers has enabled the copy protection flag for certain television broadcasts so that users like myself cannot record and view such programs on their Windows Vista computers, which implement Digital Rights Management, or DRM. I am very distressed at Rogers'' decision to do this. It limits the user''s flexibility in his choice of equipment and home configuration for digital entertainment. While Rogers does recommend using their DVR for recording, this is not a sufficient option for many users. I have to say, I''ve been a loyal Rogers customer for many, many years (just check my account), but your recent decision to do this is very upsetting. I am putting you on notice that if this situation is not rectified to my satisfaction within the next year or two, I shall be looking for an alternative provider who does NOT impose this very inconvenient restriction on Rogers'' customers. Please reply to my e-mail address.
Thank you.

This is a powerful incentive for consumers to drop Windows Vista in favour of the alternative platforms that do NOT support Digital Rights Management, namely Mac OS X and Linux.

Men are Powerless, Part 2

2007-05-14T04:33:00.000-07:00

ITEM. In 1920 women in the United States lived one year longer than men. Today women live seven years longer. The male-female life-span gap increased 600 percent.

We acknowledge that blacks dying six years sooner than whites reflects the powerlessness of blacks in American society. Yet men dying seven years sooner than women is rarely seen as a reflection of the powerlessness of men in American society.

Is the seven-year gap biological? If it is, it wouldn't have been just a one-year gap in 1920.

If men lived seven years longer than women, feminists would have helped us understand that life expectancy was the best measure of who had the power. And they would be right. Power is the ability to control one's life. Death tends to reduce control. Life expectancy is the bottom line--the ratio of our life's stresses to our life's rewards.

-----

The Catholic church is often quoted as acknowledging, "Give us a child the first five years and we will shape its life." We acknowledge the influence power of the church over its youth; we often ignore the influence power of a mother over her children--including her sons. But it is the mother who can make the child's bedtime earlier, take away desserts, or ground the child if it doesn't obey. It is the hand that rocks the cradle that creates the child's everyday heaven or hell.

Few men have a comparable amount of influence. While theoretically the man was "the master of the house," most men felt they were visitors in their wives' castles in the same way a woman would have felt like a visitor had she entered her husband's place of work. From a woman's perspective, a man's home is his castle; from a man's perspective, a woman's home is his mortgage.

Almost every woman had a primary role in the "female-dominated" family structure; only a small percentage of men had a primary role in the "male-dominated" governmental and religious structures. Many mothers were, in a sense, the chair of the board of a small company--their family. Even in Japan, women are in charge of the family finances--a fact that was revealed to the average American only after the Japanese stock market crashed in 1992 and thousands of women lost billions of dollars that their husbands never knew they had invested. Conversely, most men were on their company's assembly line--either its physical assembly line or its psychological assembly line.

Influence power, though, is not real power. If we told mothers, "The more children you have, the more power you will have," they would laugh. If we then said, "The more children you have, the more everyone will love you and respect you," the mother would feel pressured, not empowered. But when we tell men, "The more people you supervise, the more power you will have," they buy it. Real power does not come from caving in to pressure to expand obligations, it comes from controlling our own life.

Historically, a husband spent the bulk of his day under the eye of his boss--his source of income; a wife did not spend the bulk of her day under the eye of her husband--her source of income. She had more control over her work life than he had over his.

- The Myth of Male Power

Men are Powerless

2007-05-13T17:59:00.000-07:00

Net Worth Power

ITEM. The U.S. Census Bureau finds that women who are heads of households have a net worth that is 141 percent of the net worth of men who are heads of households.

(The value of the net worth statistic is that it allows us to see what he and she have left when their different liabilities are subtracted from the different assets. The women's average net worth is $13,885; the men's is $9,883. This is because although male heads of households have higher gross incomes and assets, they have much higher spending obligations. They are much more likely to support wives [or ex-wives] than wives are to support them and thus their income is divided among themselves, a wife, and children--not only for food and housing but for tuition, insurance, vacations. Divorces often mean the woman receives the home the man pays for and also gets custody of the children the man pays for. A woman's obligation to spend more time with the children leaves her earning less and the man earning more but paying out more.)

ITEM. Among the wealthiest 1.6 percent of the U.S. population (those with assets of $500,000 or more), women's net worth is more than men's.

How can so many of the wealthiest people be women when women hold none of the top corporate jobs? In part, by selecting the men who do and outliving them. And in part by having a greater spending power and lower spending power obligations...

The "Spending Obligation Gap"

In restaurants, men pay for women about ten times as frequently as women pay for men--the more expensive the restaurant, the more often the man pays. Women often say, "Well, men earn more." But when two women go to a restaurant, they don't assume that the woman who earns more will pay the bill. The expectation on men to spend more on women creates the "Spending Obligation Gap."

I got a sense of this "Spending Obligation Gap" as soon as I thought about my first date. As a teenager, I loved baby-sitting. (I genuinely loved kids, but it was also the only way I could get paid for raiding a refrigerator!) But then I got to the dating age. Alas, baby-sitting paid only fifty cents an hour. Lawn mowing, though, paid two dollars an hour. I hated lawn mowing. (I lived in New Jersey, where bugs, humidity, and noonday sun made mowing a lawn less pleasant than raiding a refrigerator.) But as soon as I started dating, I started mowing lawns.

For boys, lawn mowing is a metaphor for the way we soon learn to take jobs we like less because they pay more. Around junior year of high school, boys begin to repress their interest in foreign languages, literature, art history, sociology, and anthropology because they know an art history major will make less than an engineer. Partially as a result of his different spending expectation (the possibility he might have to support a woman but cannot expect a woman to support him), more than 85 percent of students who take engineering as a college major are men; more than 80 percent of the art history majors are women.

The difference in the earnings of the female art historian vs. the male engineer appears to be a measure of discrimination, when in fact both sexes knew ahead of time that engineering would pay more. In fact, the woman who enters engineering with the same lack of experience as the man averages $571 per year more than her male counterpart.

In brief, the spending obligation that leads a man to choose a career he likes less that pays more is a sign of powerlessness, not power. But when he takes that job, women often assume he will pay because "after all, he earns more." Thus both sexes' expectations reinforce his powerlessness.

- The Myth of Male Power, by Warren Farrell

Ain't that the truth!

Men's Studies and Male Equality

2007-05-09T16:13:00.000-07:00

This is the first in a series of important posts. I urge you to read through them carefully. My intention is to open your eyes and ears to a possibility that you may have long denied or ignored. The welfare of future generations (ie, your children and your children's children) is at stake...

Pursuant to my recent realization that the male gender is currently under siege and society has been brainwashed to allow it, I was struck by the following passage from The Myth of Male Power, by Warren Farrell:

Why Do We Need To Study Men--Isn't History One Big Study of Men?

The most common justification for studying women without studying men is that "history is men's studies...women's studies is just an attempt to give women something equivalent to what men already have." True? No. Women's studies questions the female role; nothing questions the male role. History books sell to boys the traditional male role of hero and performer. Each history book is 500 pages of advertisements for the performer role. Each lesson tells him, "If you perform, you will get love and respect; if you fail, you will be a nothing." To a boy, history is pressure to perform, not relief from the pressure. Feminism is relief from the pressure to be confined to only the traditional female role. To a boy, then, history is not the equivalent of women's studies; it is the opposite of women's studies.

Women's studies does more than question the female role--it tells women they have rights to what was the traditional male role. Nothing tells men they have rights to what was the traditional female role--rights to stay home full-time or part-time with the children while his wife supports him...

Just as, from a girl's perspective, history books are filled with men, from a boy's perspective, school itself is filled with women. It is women teaching him how to be a boy by conforming to what women tell him to do after he's been trained to conform to what his mother tells him to do. On the one hand, history books show him that his role is to be a hero who takes risks and, on the other, his female teacher is telling him not to take risks--to not roughhouse, not shout out an answer spontaneously, not use swear words, not refer to sex, not get his hair mussed, his clothes dirty... Just as women's studies helped women see they have a right to female teachers in business school, so men's studies will help men see they have a right to male teachers in grade school.

Why Feminism Has Intensified The Need For Studying Men

Feminism suggested that God might be a "She" but not that the devil might also be a "she." Feminism articulated the shadow side of men and the light side of women. It neglected the shadow side of women and the light side of men. And neglected to acknowledge that each sex has both sides within each individual. When the issue of sexual harassment surfaced, then, we were told "men don't 'get it' " when, in fact, neither sex "gets" it. Men don't get women's fears of harassment that stem from the passive role; women don't get men's fears of sexual rejection that stem from the initiating role. Each sex is so preoccupied with its own vulnerability that neither sex "gets" the other's vulnerability.

The difference? Feminism has taught women to sue men for sexual harassment or date rape when men initiate with the wrong person or with the wrong timing; no one has taught men to sue women for sexual trauma for saying "yes," then "no," then "yes," then "no." Feminism left women with three sexual options--their old role, the "male" role, and the "victim" role. Men were left with less than one option--they were still expected to initiate, but now, if they did it badly, they could go to jail. For an adolescent boy who barely knows what sex is, this is a scary half-option.

Feminism justified female "victim power" by convincing the world that we lived in a sexist, male-dominated, and patriarchal world. The Myth of Male Power explains why the world was bi-sexist, both male- and female-dominated, both patriarchal and matriarchal--each in different ways. It explains why "patriarchy" and "male dominance" doubled as code for male disposability.

By the 1980s and '90s, feminism's ability to articulate women's light side and men's shadow side led to women's magazines, talk shows, "self-improvement" books, and TV specials all equating "progressive" with women as victims and men as victimizers but rarely with men as victims (of false accusations, emotional abuse, visitation deprivation...) and women as victimizers. It was soon considered progressive to critique "male legislators" for making war but not to credit them for making democracy. We saw TV specials titled Does the Man Next Door Molest Girls? but not Does the Man Next Door Save Girls? In our everyday lives we might see six firefighters saving women, but no TV special titled Men as Saviors points out that all six were men--or that firemen who save women's lives are far more ubiquitous then men who jeopardize women's lives.

To acknowledge the full truth was no longer considered progressive, but regressive. Women bought the books and the publishers pandered to women the way politicians pander to interest groups. Women became Women Who Love...and men became Men Who Hate...(women's light side, men's dark side). The pandering transformed a female strength--understanding relationships--into a female weakness: misunderstanding men.

In the past quarter century, feminism has been to the daily news what bacteria is to water--we consumed it without knowing it, both the good and the bad. From the male point of view, feminism turned the Battle of the Sexes into a "War in Which Only One Side Showed Up."

Men have not been perfect listeners during the last quarter century as women articulated what they wanted, but men did listen enough to absorb dozens of new concepts ("sex object," "glass ceiling," palimony, the "Battered Woman Syndrome," "deadbeat dads," the "feminization of poverty"), heard dozens of slogans focused on female concerns ("a woman's right to choose," "equal pay for equal work," "our bodies, our business"), and to see their sexuality blamed for most everything (sexual harassment, sexual molestation, pornography, incest, rape, date rape).

Men not only listened but accepted as truth dozens of assumptions of discrimination against women (women are the victims of most violence; women's health is neglected more than men's; women are paid less for the same work; husbands batter wives more; men have more power; we've lived in a patriarchal, sexist, male-dominated world). Many men condemned these "discriminations against women" even as they accepted the "necessity" for discrimination against men (affirmative action for women; government-subsidized women's commissions in almost every state and county; women's studies; women-only clubs; government programs for women, infants, and children [WIC]...).

Have we been misled by feminists? Yes. Is it feminists' fault? No. Why not? Men have not spoken up. Simply stated, women cannot hear what men do not say. Now men must take responsibility to say what they want--to turn a "War in Which Only One Side Shows Up" into a "Dialogue in Which Both Sexes Speak Up."

-----

This isn't about feminism-bashing. It's about balance. Our social policies, our social attitude and perceptions, are severely out of whack. Consequently, men have been unfairly tarred and feathered as the bad guys in domestic relationships, and in male-female relationships in general. The balance needs to be restored. Men must stand up for their equality.

It's worth noting that feminists will not tolerate this kind of "dissent" from men. Whether you publish a book about men's rights, or put up a website defending men, or even paste up a poster advertising a fathers' rights support group, feminists/women will raise hell over it. No sirreee, men must keep quiet about their plight. Men must be put in their place.

(Recently, a close friend put up a poster in his window for fathers' rights, and his house got egged. It's not too hard to figure out who did it.

But what gets me is, are feminists trawling the neighbourhoods looking for signs of male dissent? Or are these people merely disgruntled neighbours who despise men?)

The Myth of Male Power, by Warren Farrell

2007-05-09T16:03:00.000-07:00

I read the dust jacket for this intriguing book. It nicely summarizes the book's point of view...

Dr. Warren Farrell has embarked upon an extraordinary mission that concerns us all--to bring the sexes back together. Backed by a stunning array of facts, The Myth of Male Power shatters the singular assumption that most keeps men and women apart--the belief that men have the power.

This myth, says Dr. Farrell, hurts everyone--by making women feel oppressed and angry and men feel unloved and unappreciated. It has fueled hate between the sexes at a point in history that would otherwise have the greatest potential for love between the sexes. It has done this by keeping us ignorant of male powerlessness.

This courageous book, filled with staggering facts gathered from numerous reliable sources, will empower both sexes to ask the questions we need to begin a genuine dialogue, such as:

If men are the powerful sex...
Why are they the suicide sex? (Why are we unaware that our grandfathers are 1350 percent more likely to commit suicide than our grandmothers?)
Why did men live one year less than women in 1920 but live seven years less than women in 1990?
Why are our dads about as likely to die of prostate cancer as our mothers are of breast cancer while breast cancer receives 660 percent more funding?
Why do men make more money but have lower net worths?

As the only man ever elected three times to the Board of the National Organization for Women (NOW) in New York City, Dr. Farrell has been listening to both sexes for a quarter of a century and is uniquely able to write in a way that both articulates men's feelings and helps women feel more love for the men in their lives. As a man who has taught in numerous disciplines, he takes us throughout history, across cultures, and into our psyches today. He helps us understand:

Why feminism helped us see that God could be a she but not that the devil could also be a she
Why the political parties are keeping women dependent in exchange for votes
Why conservatives, liberals, and feminists are all unconsciously undermining genuine equality
Why the government is becoming a substitute husband

The Myth of Male Power will lead the men's movement out of the woods and into relationships. But ultimately, Dr. Farrell contends, we do not need a women's movement or a men's movement. We need love. But love requires dialogue. And dialogue requires men to speak up--women cannot hear what men do not say. This book focuses on men's perspectives so men can speak up, so there can be dialogue, so there can be love...

-----

Feminists are deathly afraid that this book will be widely read. Find out why...

Feisty Fawn is a Winner!

2007-05-07T16:40:00.000-07:00

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2126936,00.asp

With companies and individuals everywhere failing to find the wow in Windows Vista, Apple's OS X riding iPod sales and snarky commercials to steady growth, and long-time Microsoft partner Dell announcing plans to market a Linux desktop to the mainstream, it seems certain that the days of Microsoft's desktop monopoly are numbered.

Granted, that number is probably a large one, but as evidenced by eWEEK Labs' tests of Ubuntu Linux 7.04, the state of the Linux desktop—not to mention that of other Windows alternatives—is too strong to hold off heterogeneity forever.

I love Feisty Fawn! It works really well on my old Athlon box, something that was impossible with Vista.

I believe Ubuntu is now good enough to recommend to Windows refugees, people who are sick and tired of dealing with Windows’ crap. Its ease of use is remarkable.

The Whoa Starts Now

2007-04-21T19:39:00.000-07:00

http://chris.pirillo.com/2007/02/27/windows-vista-im-breaking-up-with-you/

Sorry, I… I gave Vista a real chance. I just can't use it as my primary OS anymore. It's NOT horrible at its core (by any stretch of the imagination). If all of your hardware and software are fully baked, you're good to go - but that's not the world I live in. I will continue to recommend Windows Vista for some users, mind you. I wish I could take the best parts of Vista and bring them back with me to XP. I'm still more than willing to help Microsoft improve Windows and get the message out to users, but I simply can't sacrifice my own time and productivity without benefits in clear sight. I'm begging Microsoft and all of my hardware and software vendors to make Windows better for me. Until then…

The Whoa starts now.

This guy echoes many of the same kinds of problems I've had with Vista. He's had problems with webcams and Windows Movie Maker. Me, too. He's experienced weird quirks now and then. Me, too.

Unlike Chris Pirillo (a former TechTV host), I won't give up Vista just yet. But I understand his sentiments. Yes, the Whoa starts now...

-----

On a related note, Dell is going to bring back Windows XP on some of its computer products. Why? Because of demand from the public. Apparently, so many people are disappointed with Vista and fearful of its compatibility problems that they're insisting on OS alternatives. Microsoft can't be happy about this.

This may also explain why Dell is going to start preloading Linux on some of its machines. My bet is that they will settle on Ubuntu Linux, because even Michael Dell is running Ubuntu at home: http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS5149877302.html

Movie Review: Disturbia

2007-04-20T21:45:00.000-07:00

I saw this film on a lark. What I found was that it’s pretty much a teenage flick, ie, it’s directed at teenagers. Quite formulaic and predictable. It has a few good moments, but on the whole it’s just an okay movie.

The story basically centres around a 17-year-old named Kale (played by Shia LaBeouf) who’s under house arrest for assaulting his Spanish teacher. He wears an electronic ankle bracelet that limits his freedom to within 100 feet of his house.

He learns that one of his neighbours (played by David Morse) may be a serial killer. He’s aided in his investigation by his friend Ronnie (Aaron Yoo) and a new neighbour named Ashley whom Kale has a crush on. Ashley is played by the very comely Sarah Roemer.

Performances are generally good. Carrie-Anne Moss (as Kale’s mother) has all-too-brief a role but it’s good to see her anyway. David Morse is especially creepy—he’s quite good in such roles (12 Monkeys; 16 Blocks; The Green Mile).

Shia LaBeouf is very good. And I think I shall fantasize about Sarah Roemer this evening.

I have to make a comment about product placement. Early in the movie, we see Kale using a MacBook Pro laptop. Okay, that’s fine. This family is obviously well-to-do, even though Carrie-Anne Moss balks at paying $12 a day for the incarceration fee (presumably for the ankle bracelet).

But later on, we see a Mac Pro workstation sitting underneath the desk in his bedroom. Shit, what 17-year-old kid has a Mac Pro??? Even I can’t afford one!

So Kale has both a MacBook Pro AND a Mac Pro? Why? Why does he need so much computing power? To do his book reports and algebra homework?

Apple and Dell Workstations

2007-04-20T07:33:00.000-07:00

There is one area where Dell is particularly weak against Apple: business workstations. Let's take a look at the Precision 490, their less expensive, Quad-Core Xeon workstation. Configured to match Apple Mac Pro's specs, it costs $5,168 Canadian.

The Mac Pro goes for $4,391. Here are the specs:

Two 2.66GHz Dual-Core Xeon processors
4GB 667MHz DDR2 memory
500GB 7200rpm hard drive
16X DVD burner
3 Year warranty
512MB ATI Radeon X1900 XT graphics

The Dell box has NVIDIA graphics (256MB Quadro FX 3450). Arguably, it's roughly equivalent to the Radeon.

Note the price difference in Apple's favour: $777. These two machines aren't even in the same ballpark! Dell is terribly overpriced in this instance. The Mac Pro turns out to be a genuine bargain!

And let's not overlook Mac Pro's gorgeous industrial design.

HP is Numero Uno

2007-04-19T14:24:00.000-07:00

Design-wise, you are quite right. At CNET, the Top Rated and Editor’s Choice for Thin-and-Light notebooks is the MacBook (black edition).

The 15” MacBook Pro is the third highest rated Mainstream laptop. And the 17” MacBook Pro is the seventh highest rated Desktop replacement/Gaming laptop. You don’t get scores like these for weak designs.

The Mac Pro is the fifth highest rated Performance desktop. The Mac mini is the Top Rated Media Center PC with the 24” iMac being the second highest rated. The 17” iMac is the second highest rated Mainstream desktop.

In short, Apple’s computer line-up is amazingly strong, design-wise. And, yes, Apple’s reasonable pricing should help.

But they still have to overcome the false public perception that the Mac is overpriced. AND they have to overcome the “Wow” factor of Vista—hence, the reason for the aggressive and clever Get a Mac advertising campaign.

R

On 4/19/07 3:21 PM, "E Eng" wrote:

Nah, it's their more reasonable pricing, along with design, and iPod sales that is helping Mac sales. As you've indicated in your comparisons, the price gap has narrowed between PCs and Macs.

E.

On 4/19/07, Richard Eng wrote:

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2115576,00.asp

HP is #1 worldwide; Dell is #2. (Dell is still #1 in the US, but just barely.)

The most interesting thing, however, is that Apple had the best quarter of all the major PC vendors in the US. Their shipments grew an astonishing 30% in the first quarter of 2007 compared to the same quarter last year.

Methinks their Get a Mac advertising campaign is working...

R

Value Proposition

2007-04-16T21:05:00.000-07:00

The 20” iMac costs $1,700 Canadian. The Dell Dimension 9200 with 20” display costs $1,560. But the extra $140 for the iMac buys you built-in webcam, wireless networking, and speakers. So this easily balances out.

There's one other thing about the iMac vis-à-vis Dell: the iMac is QUIET, whereas the Dell, being a conventional desktop PC, does emit an audible noise (though, to be sure, it’s low level). It’s hard to put a price on Quiet, but for me, I’d gladly pay a $200 premium.

I’ve demonstrated that, across the board, Apple is not actually “more expensive” than Dell. Whether you’re looking for a thin & light notebook, or an industrial-strength graphics workstation, or just a plain ol’ desktop workhorse, Apple has an answer for everyone. Seems to me, and you may correct me if I’m wrong, Apple is poised for a massive assault on the worldwide PC market.

Combined with their amazing marketing campaign ( http://www.apple.com/ca/getamac/ads/ ), it’s easy to predict major success in the coming years...

Why the Mac is so easy to use

2007-04-16T20:54:00.000-07:00

The reason the Mac is so easy to use is because Apple tightly controls the hardware platform. This ensures that there are no driver compatibility problems. And that's why their business model is superior. When you have a wide open technological model (such as the IBM PC), you open yourself up to the same set of compatibility issues that plagues both Windows AND Linux.

Yes, Mac costs more for this very reason, as well. But isn’t it interesting that competition forces Apple to keep their prices within reason, compared to PCs? For example...

The MacBook costs about the same as the Dell XPS M1210 (~$1,650 Canadian). Both are thin and lightweight.

The Mac Pro costs about $3,460 and the Dell XPS 710 $3,170. Not a big price difference. Moreover, the Mac Pro has a pair of Dual-Core Xeon processors, which the XP 710 can't really match.

The 17” MacBook Pro goes for $3,100 Canadian. Dell has nothing comparable, but the Inspiron 9400 costs $2,380. The Dell has a slower processor, slower graphics, and at 1.6” thick and 7.9 pounds, it’s a frickin’ brick, as well!!! Plus, the MacBook Pro (1” thick, 6.8 pounds) has an aluminum shell. So, taken altogether, the MacBook Pro is worth the extra $700.

(Interestingly, Dell has nothing close or comparable to the 15” MacBook Pro.)

So it’s pretty clear that Apple’s products are quite competitive, if not by price alone then by value proposition.

In other words, and in short, Apple rocks!!!

-----

I could’ve compared the 17” MacBook Pro to the Dell XPS M1710 ($3,180). But this seemed too unfair because, although the Dell has faster graphics (it’s a gaming laptop, after all), it’s even THICKER and HEAVIER than the Inspiron 9400...1.7” and 8.8 pounds. Cripes, why can’t Dell build thin and light notebooks???

Vista sales tank in 2007

2007-04-12T17:40:00.000-07:00

Here’s the detailed Harris poll that sheds doubt on Microsoft’s claims of huge Vista sales:

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=745

The public is underwhelmed by Vista. And rightly so. Microsoft’s The “Wow” starts now campaign is a joke. People are not buying into the marketing hype. They realize that there is nothing revolutionary nor compelling about Vista compared to WinXP.

The first time I saw the The “Wow” starts now campaign, I laughed. They think they can tell YOU to be wowed by this operating system?! What an infantile marketing campaign!

Just who have Microsoft hired to do their marketing? I don’t get it—can’t they hire somebody better? They surely have the money.

And why is Apple’s marketing so superior? What accounts for their ingenuity?

Anyway, despite Microsoft’s ridiculous claim of 20 million Vista sales in February, I believe 2007 will prove to be a major disappointment for them, comparable to the Windows ME debacle of 2001.

The Vista Revolution

2007-03-31T08:53:00.000-07:00

This is a nicely detailed, in-depth review of Windows Vista by Paul Thurrott:

http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/winvista.asp

I generally agree with his findings. However, I do take exception to some of his closing comments...

Vista is both broad and deep, with major new features and functionality. Architecturally, it's based on the NT platform that has provided the underpinnings of all mainstream Windows versions for more than a half decade. That suggests that Windows Vista is only an evolutionary upgrade over Windows XP. But don't be deceived: In Vista, Windows has been completely deconstructed and rebuilt as a more elegant componentized system that can be secured and deployed far more easily. The ramifications of this work will reach far into the future, but what all this means to me is that Windows Vista is a major Windows update that deserves your attention. It is, at turns, both revolutionary and evolutionary.
...
In conclusion, Windows Vista is both evolutionary and revolutionary, and I know it's great because every time I have to use Windows XP, I feel constrained and miss those Vista features I'm just now starting to take for granted.

Vista is revolutionary?? Uh, I don’t think so.

Thurrott is correct that Microsoft has reworked many major subsystems in Windows. But does this constitute a “revolution?” The benefits of the new codebase may be seen in future applications but I rather doubt that those applications will be revolutionary.

For an operating system to be deemed “revolutionary,” it has to fundamentally alter the user experience in some way. Does Vista do this? Of course, not. I grant you, Vista has a pretty new face. Vista also has numerous new features, none of which are revolutionary. Thurrott calls these features “major,” but I dispute that characterization. Yes, they’re nice to have. They can be useful. But “major?” C’mon!

I’ve used Vista for over a month. I generally like it. It has been a positive experience, except for a few minor hiccups. But my user experience has not been fundamentally changed. Compared to Windows XP, Vista feels more like a face-lift.

Contrary to Thurrott’s experience, when I go back to XP, I don’t feel constrained. I don’t miss the Vista features. I can move between the two platforms with ease. This further illustrates the fact that the Vista experience is far from revolutionary.

Windows Vista is a major improvement over XP (when you take the totality of new features). I think you will like it. But at the end of the day, it is no different than using Windows XP or Mac OS X or Linux. They all provide you with the same basic user experience:

a 2-D graphical desktop
mouse and keyboard navigation
data storage and retrieval capability (search and new filesystem)
support for your hardware peripherals (camcorder, iPod, printer, etc.)
application launcher (email, browser, photo editor, etc.)

If Microsoft is going to “Wow” us with a revolution, they have to do better than this.

Overall Evaluation of Vista

2007-03-31T06:22:00.000-07:00

I like Windows Vista, I really do. Despite the fact that I found several bugs, none of them are showstoppers and I expect that people will generally have a positive Vista experience. Having said that, I have to say that there is no compelling reason to upgrade to Vista. The Top Reasons for moving to Windows Vista are:

The attractive Aero interface.
The built-in Media Center application.
The built-in Search capability.
The new security features.

I must admit, I am drawn to the Aero interface. But let’s be honest, this is all about cosmetics. Functionally, Aero doesn’t really improve usability over Windows XP. However, there’s no denying that people generally enjoy “eye candy.”

I also like the built-in Media Center application...I can watch TV while I’m on the computer! However, I could do this under Windows XP using Hauppauge’s own TV software. Vista’s solution is simply more elegant, that is all.

While the built-in Search capability is nifty, the fact is, you can add this capability to Windows XP using free, third-party applets. (Ditto for Vista’s Sidebar widgets.)

It remains to be seen how much safer Vista’s much-vaunted new security features will make your computer, but the fact is, you can make your Windows XP machine pretty safe by adopting appropriate security measures.

Bottom line: there is nothing compelling about Vista to make you upgrade from Windows XP. So my recommendation is that if you like Vista, wait until you get a new PC. In other words, if your PC is obsolete or problematic (eg, if you’re still running Windows 98, or if Windows XP is causing you difficulties), then get Vista with a new PC.

If you’re happy with your current Windows XP machine and you are not experiencing any problems, then do NOT upgrade to Vista. It is not worth the risk or hassle.

Either way, you can buy yourself some time until the first Vista Service Pack is released which will fix most of the bugs you are likely to encounter. If you do get a new PC now, I think you’ll like Vista. But be prepared to work around a few glitches...

Waiting for Godot

2007-03-24T16:29:00.000-07:00

Since getting my Sonata-Vista machine (named Batman), I have found several obvious software glitches. First, the machine occasionally fails to go into sleep mode as scheduled (after 30 minutes of inactivity). Second, the machine occasionally fails to re-acquire the wireless network connection (either on waking from sleep mode or on boot up). Third, on one occasion the machine failed to respond to the keyboard, necessitating a reboot.

This week, I found two more glitches. Fourth, under Vista the Internet browser (either IE7 or Firefox) was very slow to connect to http://www.torontopubliclibrary.ca. (It could take several minutes!)

This slowdown did not occur under Windows XP, OS X, or Linux (all running Firefox). (I also used IE6 under WinXP and Safari under OS X.) So it had to be a Vista issue exclusively.

Subsequent research uncovered the fix:
netsh command fix

Fifth, on one occasion Windows Media Center suddenly and out of the blue decided that I had scheduled 8 recordings of CBC The National. I had to manually remove each and every scheduled recording. What a pain!

I found these five glitches within 30 days of ownership and use of Windows Vista (and my brand new computer). Look, I'm not a power user. I don't stress my computer at all. If I can find so many bugs within 30 days of typical PC operation, then this is good evidence that Vista is not ready for prime time.

Please note: These are only the glitches that I have found. Don’t overlook all the other reports of Vista bugs and incompatibilities that you can find on the Internet.

It's also worth noting that in over two years of using Windows XP with Service Pack 2, I have found only one or two glitches. Now that is stability!

You should expect this kind of stability from Vista. So my earlier admonition stands: Do NOT adopt Windows Vista until at least Service Pack 1. And if you wish to enjoy WinXP w/SP2 stability, then I suggest going even further and waiting for Service Pack 2!

The Sonata-Vista Project

2007-03-13T12:03:00.000-07:00

My old PCs were getting rather obsolete. I have a couple of Athlon machines and a Toshiba laptop with 1.4GHz Centrino. With the release of Windows Vista, it was time for a new PC to keep pace with the latest developments in IT. The first question was whether to buy a PC from a name brand vendor such as Dell, or assemble my own hot rod PC. I decided on the latter and so began my DIY Vista Box Project...

My primary concern was silent operation. I wanted to eliminate fan noise and hard drive noise as much as possible. So I chose the Antec Sonata II computer case with 450W power supply. It has rubber grommets for the hard drive and a quiet cooling solution. (Antec's tagline is: "Silence is Beautiful.")

I also wanted the most bang for the buck. The "sweet spot" for CPU and memory are E6600 (for Intel Core 2 Duo) and 2GB DDR2. I chose the high performance ASUS P5B Deluxe/WiFi-AP motherboard for its passive cooling and built-in wireless adaptor. The video card is also passively cooled. I pushed the envelope and went for a 500GB hard drive. My component list follows:

Antec Sonata II w/450W P.S.
ASUS P5B Deluxe/WiFi-AP
Intel Core 2 Duo E6600
2GB Kingston DDR2 (667MHz)
ASUS EAX1600 Pro Silent edition w/256MB DDR2
Western Digital WD5000KS 500GB hard drive
LG 18X DVD writer
Windows Vista Home Premium (32-bit)

Total price in Canadian dollars: $1,382.14 plus tax.

I also chose the following peripherals:

Microsoft Comfort Curve Keyboard 2000 ($19.99 from TigerDirect Canada)
Logitech Click! optical mouse ($12.99 from Canada Computers)
Acer AL2223WD 22" widescreen LCD monitor ($319 plux tax)
Creative Inspire T3030 2.1 speakers ($50.10, shipping & tax incl., from Best Buy Canada)

My photo blog of the project is here: http://sonata-vista.blogspot.com/

I named my new machine Batman because of the gorgeous piano-black gloss finish on the case, the silver-gray bezel on the Acer monitor, and the black keyboard and 2.1 speakers.

-----

Out of the box, Vista could not recognize my X1600 Pro video card, motherboard Wi-Fi (Realtek RTL8187), and some "Unknown Device." I downloaded the drivers from AMD/ATI and ASUS, and they resolved the first two devices. (The "Unknown Device" somehow resolved itself!)

-----

God, I hate computer networking. I spent the entire day struggling with networking on my Sonata-Vista system. It was very frustrating.

But I started from basics, step by step, and worked myself up to using my new 802.11g Linksys router, which I acquired a couple of weeks ago. (My old router was 802.11b.)

Because my print server and my Toshiba laptop do not support WPA security, they are now both on wired LANs. I had to move my print server to the basement where my cable modem is.

-----

The Sonata-Vista box is not particularly quiet. My brother's new Dimension 9200 is actually quieter. But I’ve given up on trying to make this thing silent. It’s just too hard.

Despite a fanless motherboard and a fanless video card, the 120mm exhaust fan on the Antec case and the whine of the hard drive are noisy enough on their own to render any quiescent measures hopeless.

Also, I kept hearing the occasional thump, thump, thump from the machine. It took me a while to isolate the sound... It came from the hard drive. The thumping is the sound of head seeks!

-----

Assembly took all day Saturday and a small part of Sunday. Despite the care that I took, and the tentative steps, I still managed to make some mistakes...

Here’s a tip: when you’re installing memory DIMMs, before you go pressing on the DIMMs with all your might (and warping the motherboard) trying to cause the retaining clips to close in, do yourself a favour and close the clips as much as possible first, and THEN press on the DIMMs. You’ll find the clips close in and lock into position a whole lot easier. (Would somebody please smack me upside the head?)

The biggest mistake was when I tried installing the mounting rails on the DVD drive. Apparently I used the wrong screws, which didn’t go in very easily. I ended up ripping the head off of one of the screws, so the screw stem is permanently stuck in the screw hole. Fortunately, I was installing the rails into the WRONG SET of screw holes at the time, so the mistake didn’t really matter.

As Forrest Gump would say, “Stupid is as stupid does.”

-----

Installing the CPU and heatsink was actually the easiest part of the assembly, much to my surprise. This was the step that had me paralyzed with fear for the longest time. But the fear was unfounded. Today’s engineers have made this installation quite painless.

You simply lay the CPU gently into the socket, swing down the pressure plate, and use a lever to lock down the plate.

Even the heatsink already came with the thermal contact cement applied on the surface. All I had to do was place the heatsink on top of the CPU, press on the four legs of the heatsink assembly unit so that they lock into the motherboard’s holes, and I was done!

-----

I can watch TV on Batman! And it was so easy to setup, too!

I plugged in my Hauppauge (HOP-hog) WinTV-PVR-USB2. Vista automatically searched for a driver at Windows Update, found it, and installed it.

Then I ran Windows Media Center. The wizard walked me through a few simple questions and I was up and watching TV! It couldn't have been easier. Nice job, Microsoft.

Here is an example of where "it just works." Apple better be afraid--MS is starting to catch up in terms of usability...

-----

When I installed the WinXP driver for the Watchport/V webcam, Vista told me that it couldn't run the software because the program doesn't support multiple processors. I was stunned by this statement...

First, how does the program know that it's on a multiple processor system? And, second, why does it care? This is a webcam, for God's sake--one CPU is all it needs.

So I forced it to run anyway.

This is one of several roadblocks Vista threw up during the installation. But if you persevere, you CAN make the WinXP driver work...

(Maybe it's because this is a USB device. Can't say whether it applies to all USB devices, though.)

-----

Windows Speech Recognition is f*cking FANTABULOUS!!!

My ASUS motherboard came with an array microphone. I attached it to Batman. It sits on top of my Acer monitor.

You can enable speech recognition by going to Accessories/Ease of Access/Windows Speech Recognition. It's dead-easy to setup. The tutorial is a good way to train Vista to recognize your voice--it LEARNS while you talk!

The recognition rate is excellent. It only makes the occasional mistake. Frankly, I'm amazed that it can cut through my slurred speech (at 8:00 in the morning, my mouth and vocal cord aren't at their best).

Speech recognition is useful for both dictation and uttering desktop commands. But I'm much more of a keyboard person myself, so I'll use speech recognition only sparingly.

Mac computing the same as Windows computing

2007-03-13T11:53:00.000-07:00

Mac computing isn't that different from Windows computing anymore. OS X and Vista are pretty much on equal footing these days.

For example, Vista's GUI desktop is as pleasant to use as Mac's, if not more so.

And both Mac and Vista have their share of problems, sometimes the same problems! I cite three examples:

Occasionally, the machine fails to go to sleep on schedule (after 30 minutes of idle activity).
Occasionally, the machine fails to re-acquire the wireless network.
Occasionally, the machine fails to respond to the keyboard.

It would appear that, regardless of whether you're in the Mac camp or the Windows camp, power management and wireless networking remain technical challenges for design engineers.

It's also worth noting that while Vista may cause some headaches in supporting certain hardware (usually due to poorly written third-party drivers), this is balanced by the fact that some hardware receive no Mac support whatsoever.

So I seem to be drawn back into the Windows camp. BUT, I haven't give up on Mac OS X yet. The reason is this...

DRM. Digital Rights Management. Vista embraces it.

This may not be much in the public consciousness right now but it will be in the future. As Tom Merritt, Executive Editor at CNET, correctly points out, Vista and DRM are too new and it's too early for users to notice. But once these people realize they can't do what they want to do with their media content, once they see they can't play their music or their movies, they will cry foul. They will blame Microsoft and Vista. They will wish they had gone with Apple.

Just as I had predicted the disaster in Iraq four years ago and sat back waiting patiently for the inevitable outcome to unfold, I now sit back patiently and wait for the DRM storm to descend upon us...

The Best Place in the World to Buy a Condo

2007-03-12T11:04:00.000-07:00

Industry professionals are calling it the "condo craze"--but whatever you name it, the condo market in Toronto and the GTA is hotter than ever before.

Watching condo sales for the last few months of 2006 was fascinating. In June, high-rise sales were up 41 per cent, beating the all-time record for market share. July brought the news that high-rise sales increased by 260 per cent in Peel Region and 215 per cent in York Region. In August, condos represented 44 per cent of all new homes sold. High-rise sales brought us the strongest September in five years. Compared to October 2005, that same month in 2006 saw a decrease in high-rise sales, but then November rolled around and sales reached a five-year high for that month.

Right now, we have the most competitive condominium market in North America, which is amazing news for consumers. Toronto and area purchasers enjoy a fabulous selection, outstanding features and remarkable building amenities, and all at competitive prices. Today's condominium developers are doing their best to put together desirable packages to attract buyers--and the buyers are the winners. Our conscientious condominium developers travel to other cities to source items, explore new construction and design techniques, and look at what other builders have to offer.

Intensive market research also ensures that our developers respond to what buyers really want. And today, they want choice. Nowhere in the U.S. will you find the flexibility to choose from so many features, finishes and upgrades. There, builders tend to offer one package and that's what you get. Here, buyers have the opportunity to personalize their condo suites with selections from a wide range of finishes.

Buyers also want fabulous architecture and environmentally friendly green features, and developers have accomplished amazing things on both fronts. Programs such as LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) and ENERGY STAR are two programs helping builders create win-win situations that benefit both the environment and the homebuyers.

The fact is, today's consumers come into condominium sales offices more prepared than ever before, and developers are determined to keep a step ahead. It's a win-win for Toronto and area customers who get to shop for condos in the best place in the world!

- Pat Baker for Metro Dreamhomes

I bought my condo at West Harbour City, Phase 2 development, along the Lakeshore in Toronto. Expected completion is in 2010. East-facing, I will have a decent view of the Toronto cityline, as well as of the harbourfront.

Chinese Astrology

2007-03-12T10:41:00.000-07:00

Hmmm, there may be something to this Chinese astrology shit, after all. In this, The Year of the (Golden?) Pig, I seem to be enjoying some unusual good fortune...

Since Chinese New Year (February 18th), the following have happened:

I bought a new condo in an area that I like, with a view that I like, with a floorplan that I like, at a bargain price.

I assembled my own hot rod Vista box for an excellent total cost of less than $1,400 (tax not incl.). I expect this will jumpstart my entremanurial ambitions later this year.

My girlfriend broke up with me.

I bought an excellent set of new all-season radials for the Silver Beast.
I am once again a millionaire.

The condo isn't too close to the Gardiner. And I get a view of both the cityline and harbourfront. And I have a comfortable amount of floorspace.

"Entremanurial," from the Old French, meaning "to undertake bullshit."

You might be wondering about #3. It's a positive fortune because I recently learned that my girlfriend is psychotic. (In fact, *all* women are psychotic.) The breakup relieves an enormous amount of stress and frustration, and I am happier as a result.

BTW, she broke up with me on Chinese New Year (the 18th)! Sheesh.

The new Goodyear Assurance TripleTred all-season radials are a blessing because if my service station hadn't brought my cracking, 8-year-old tires to my attention, I might still be driving on them. A blow-out on the 400 at 140 km/hr might kill me (or someone else).

I'm a (Canadian) millionaire, but just by a hair. A stock market correction will quickly change that. Technically speaking, this isn't a Year-of-the-Pig development since I passed the million dollar net worth mark in December, but it's close enough that I'll give the attribution.

Overall, I am feeling very sanguine about my life...

So, is it the Year of the Golden Pig? The controversy continues, but here's an interesting comment:

http://hubpages.com/hub/goldenpig

Each year is also linked with one of five elements: wood, metal, fire, earth and water. This year is a Fire Pig Year, which occurs once every 60 years. But because it's the 10th Fire Pig Year in a 600-year cycle, that makes it golden, says Marie Diamond, a feng shui expert who writes Chinese horoscopes for AOL.

Google Apps

2007-03-03T20:22:00.000-08:00

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2097926,00.asp

Joe Wilcox has done an excellent analysis of Google Apps versus Office:

Microsoft Watch article

Whether the head or the tail, Google benefits from good timing. By redesigning the Office user interface, Microsoft has created another barrier to switching from old Office suites and increased costs along the way. Businesses will have to budget for work disruption, extra training and increased support calls, if switching to Office 2007. These kinds of costs have long been a barrier to businesses considering switching to competing productivity suites. Now the costs apply to Office, too. Google's interface is loads more familiar because it resembles the older Office motif.

I'm switching to Google apps. I don't want to pay the absurd price for Office 2007, and at the moment OpenOffice.org doesn't quite work under Windows Vista.

Do We Really Need Quad Core?

2007-03-03T20:12:00.001-08:00

If you ask whether or not we need quad-core CPUs, you may as well ask whether or not we will ever need faster processors. You may as well have asked, back when the Pentium was introduced, whether it wasn't just enough to make faster 486s. That's the equivalent of what we're talking about here. Integrated floating-point units, wider pipelines, MMX, SSE…multiple cores. These are the innovations that will increase CPU power. Sure, each core within a multicore CPU will continue to be tweaked (the Core 2's 128-bit wide SSE execution per core is a good example), but those things only get you so far, and they're very time-consuming and expensive in engineering terms.

But the apps aren't there yet, right? Quad-core could come late next year, you say. No, the apps are there. Ever encode video? All the video encoders are heavily multithreaded, and video encoding is extremely parallelizable: You get huge speedups. Oh, but the average user doesn't encode video…only they do. iDVD is an extremely popular Mac app (Intel fuels Apple's machines now, remember?) and next year, literally tens of millions of new Vista owners will have bundled DVD creation software, too. All that MPEG2 encoding can take a long time. Many portable devices require video to be in a particular format or resolution, so the re-encoding of all that stuff is another big time sink. When it comes to HD-DVD and Blu-ray, even the decoding can suck the life out of a high-end CPU.

Then there's general multitasking. You might think that grandma only runs her web browser and email client, or that your laptop is only for a couple of office and web apps, and maybe listening to some music on the road. Each of these only requires a fraction of modern CPU power, so you don't really need multiple CPUs to handle the load, right? Well, that would be true if that were really all your computer were doing. Operating systems like OS X and Vista index drive contents in the background and run other diagnostic services that attempt to keep your system running smoothly and make those searches pop up in an instant. There's a whole flood of stuff going on—again, none of it particularly CPU-intensive by itself. But add 'em all together with all the little lightweight apps you're running, toss in the constant snooping of virus protection software and maybe a little encryption for your sensitive data (business contacts, company plans, "family videos," whatever) and you're talking about a whole lot of multitasking.

Multitasking is more than just what you see on your taskbar, after all.

So is now the right time for quad-core CPUs? Hell, yes it is. It was the right time for quad-core months ago. It's the right time for six or eight-core CPUs. You could give me 16 cores and I would ask where the 20-core chips are. More cores are faster, and faster is better, because it enables richer, easier-to-use, more fun software. Bring on the many-core CPUs, heavily multitasking OS environments, and multithreaded software. I'm ready for the parallel processing universe.

- ExtremeTech.com

Vista versus Linux Face-Off

2007-02-01T11:10:00.001-08:00

This is an excellent technical analysis of Vista versus Linux performed by Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols. In case you’re wondering about his creds, Vaughan-Nichols is an operating system expert who has been working with and administering Windows, OS X, and Linux/Unix for a great many years. There are few such experts whom I respect more. I’ve enjoyed reading his articles for as long as I’ve been reading eWeek...

I've been working with Vista since its beta days, and I started using Linux in the mid-90s. There may be other people who have worked with both more than I have, but there can't be many of them. Along the way, I've formed a strong opinion: Linux is the better of the two.

But, now that Vista is on the brink of becoming widely available, I thought it was time to take a comprehensive look at how the two really compare. To do this, I decided to take one machine, install both of them on it, and then see what life was like with both operating systems on a completely even playing field.

Here is Part 1:
http://desktoplinux.com/articles/AT9727687530.html

Here is Part 2:
http://desktoplinux.com/articles/AT2094892904.html

One final thought on BitLocker before I go. Microsoft has only made it available on its Enterprise and Ultimate editions. Enterprise is only available to volume buyers, and Ultimate's the most expensive Vista of them all. I find it more than a little annoying that small business users will have to upgrade to Ultimate to get what I think of as one of Vista's best points for business users.

Here is Part 3 (how well do they work with hardware):
http://desktoplinux.com/articles/AT9325931427.html

Apparently, Vista is weaker than Linux in the 64-bit environment.

Graphics is disappointing, too...

Now, the GeForce 6200SE is no speed demon. Instead of having its own video RAM, it cannibalizes 256MB of the system's main RAM. No one expects to get any kind of WOW experience from this card.

What I did expect, though, was, given the rest of the system, to be able to at least run Vista's fancy-pants new GUI, Aero, decently. Wrong.

While I was installing Vista, it told me that my "Windows Experience Index" was going to be 2.4. Let me translate that for you: my graphics quality was going to be mediocre. A 3.0 is considered adequate for Aero.

But Vista is particularly problematic with audio...

When I switched back to Vista, I tried to play Wilco's Yankee Hotel Foxtrot CD. Whoops! Not a single sound emerged from my speakers. After a little investigation, I found that Vista disables media outputs that don't incorporate DRM, when you try to play DRM protected media through them.

That was a kick in the head. I have a fully legal CD in my hand. Any other version of Windows will play it, Linux will play it, Mac OS will play it, and my CD player will play it, but if you're using S/PDIF for your computer-driven audio and Vista, you're out of luck. If you have a card with a Toslink optical digital audio port, you will be able to play it.

One of the ironies of the situation was that this very album had been first released on the Web without any DRM, in part as a protest against DRM. Ah well, that was yesterday.

If you're planning on viewing or listening to DRM-protected media of any sort, Linux is clearly going to give you better hardware support. By incorporating DRM into the operating system, Microsoft is going to make it very difficult for everyone from PC DVR (digital video recorder) users to just a guy who wants to play a DRM-crippled CD to be certain that everything will work properly.

Adding insult to injury, since DRM protection schemes must evolve constantly, to stay ahead of hackers tearing them down, I have little doubt that one day you'll come home to find that a Vista update to DRM-protection has just locked you out of your media collection. You know, the same collection, which had worked just fine the day before. Repeat after me: DRM does not belong in operating systems.

Windows Vista: Understanding Your Rights

2007-02-01T10:51:00.000-08:00

http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/423

What is interesting is not whether you have the right to use unactivated-but-properly-purchased software, but how Microsoft enforces its right. What Microsoft says is that the software will simply stop working. So, where is the proof that the software is not activated? Who has the burden of proof? What if you assert that you did activate the product, but Microsoft claims you did not? What if you attempt to activate the product, but Microsoft’s servers are down, or they provide improper information, or their servers are hacked and give you bad activation information? What the contract states is that unless you can activate the product (irrespective of whose fault it is that you cannot activate), you forfeit your right to use the product, and therefore access to any of the information on any computers using the product.

The problem with Vista is that you have to put your trust entirely in Microsoft’s hands. However, Microsoft is not infallible. If they screw up and you can’t prove that you’ve activated your software, what recourse do you have?

Once you activate the product, then you would assume that you are golden to go ahead and use the product, right? Wrong.

You see, even after you activate the software it will, according to the EULA, “from time to time validate the software, update or require download of the validation feature of the software.” It will once again “send information about the . . . version and product key of the software, and the Internet protocol address of the device.”

Here’s where it gets hairy again. If for some reason the software “phones home” back to Redmond, Washington, and gets or gives the wrong answer - irrespective of the reason - it will automatically disable itself. That's like saying definitively, “I’m sorry Dave, I’m afraid I can’t do that...” Unless you can prove to the satisfaction of some automaton that the software is “Genuine,” or more accurately, that under the relevant copyright laws that you have satisfied the requirements of the copyright laws and all of the terms of the End User License Agreement, the software will, on its own, go into a “protect Microsoft” mode.

So not only does Vista spy on you constantly, again you are vulnerable to Microsoft screw-ups that may deny you access to your own computer.

This kind of shit does not happen with Mac OS X or Linux.

Vista Wars VI

2007-01-29T15:38:00.000-08:00

Big improvement? Many reviewers (both professional and amateur) would disagree with you. Just look at reviews from CNET editors, from a Microsoft apologist at MIT Technology Review, from columnists at eWeek.

However, I shall concede that there are things to appreciate in Vista. The point I wish to make is that many of these things are already in OS X Tiger. Despite recent security vulnerabilities found in OS X, it is still a damn sight safer than Windows. It remains to be seen whether Vista will live up to its security claims. Hackers are now only beginning to attack Vista...

The Sidebar gadgets in Vista were copied from OS X’s Dashboard. The much-vaunted search function was modeled after OS X’s Spotlight. Gee, is there anything original in Vista?!

If you need 32-bit app compatibility, why not run them in Parallels Desktop on the Mac? You can dig up that old copy of Win2k lying around and save yourself hundreds of dollars in upgrade costs.

OS X Leopard will be coming out soon, with a raft of new features and bling-bling. What we have here is the classic game of leapfrog, with Windows and OS X trying to outdo each other with successive versions. If you think Vista is nice, why not wait a little longer and see what Leopard has to offer?

R

On 1/29/07 1:46 PM, "Ajith Shanmuganathan" wrote:

In general Vista is a big improvement over XP. I installed Vista Ultimate x64 in less than 1/2 an hour and it detected all my hardware flawlessly. My 3 year old Lexmark printer is the only thing that is waiting for drivers. The Aero interface is clean and efficient, the font is much easier to read than in XP. The rotating blue/green busy-cursor is really cool. I like the predefined gadgets for the weather, time, and RSS feed on the desktop.

Security is much better, it is now possible to run all the time in non-admin mode and just sudo into admin mode to do maintenance. The filesystem seems more locked down and IE seems more secure as well.

32 bit apps run fine, and I haven't seen any issues with compatibility.

Performance is much better than XP. Programs load almost instantaneously and feel far more responsive than XP. The base O/S uses about 600M of RAM, but upgrading 1G of RAM costs about $120.

Vista Wars V

2007-01-29T15:37:00.001-08:00

Over the years, I’ve played with numerous desktop interfaces...Win 3.x, Win 9x, Win 2k, Win XP, OS/2 Warp, KDE, GNOME, Enlightenment, Fluxbox, Amiga, GEM, etc. I’ve found that once the novelty wears off, once you get used to the interface during the day-to-day grind of your job, you just don’t care about the interface anymore. They start to all look alike. The main thing for you is that the OS functions mostly as an application launcher, and everything else is just bells and whistles.

In time, you will be able to move between Vista and XP and KDE and GNOME and Aqua and not care about their differences. The fact is, today’s Operating Systems have much more in common than in distinction. None of them is revolutionary—they’re all just variations on a theme. For Paul Thurrott to call Vista “revolutionary” reflects the reality that he’s nothing more than a Microsoft shill.

Save your money. If you’re currently using XP, just stick with it. If you’re using Win 9x, you’re way behind the times and you’re vulnerable to all kinds of problems—this is your opportunity to make a giant leap, a paradigm shift. The only question is: Do you want to pay through the nose to upgrade to Vista, or do you want to jump ship to the Mac? The value proposition is clear, and Ajith will never be able to make a cogent argument in favour of Vista.

R

Vista Wars IV

2007-01-29T15:34:00.000-08:00

That’s laughable. How much time do most consumers spend in the Operating System? They just want to run their favourite apps, like games, web browser, office suite, iTunes, and perhaps media viewer. The OS is largely an application switcher.

It doesn’t matter to most people what their GUI front-end is like. Aero Glass? Aqua? KDE? They couldn’t care less. They just want to avoid a steep learning curve and to get on with their work. You said it yourself...there are things in Vista that require acclimation, features that don’t work the way you like.

How do I know all this? I use my girlfriend’s family as a model of typical Windows users. She, and her son and daughter (both in university), make minimum use of the desktop interface. Because, to paraphrase someone, it’s the apps, Stupid!

R

On 1/29/07 1:46 PM, "Ajith Shanmuganathan" wrote:

I find it difficult to use XP on my laptop, now.

Vista Wars III

2007-01-29T15:32:00.000-08:00

Some people need to upgrade their RAM and their video card, even on a one-year-old computer!

You mention $120 as if that’s no big deal. But if a consumer has already spent $1,500 on a new laptop one year ago, and then he has to spend another $180 for a Home Premium Upgrade, and then another $120 for the RAM upgrade, we’re already talking about tacking on another $300 to the original purchase price. And that’s before tax.

Ajith, it’s a big deal. Perhaps not for you because you’re floating in cash, but not many people are as fortunate as you are.

R

On 1/29/07 1:46 PM, "Ajith Shanmuganathan" wrote:

Performance is much better than XP. Programs load almost instantaneously and feel far more responsive than XP. The base O/S uses about 600M of RAM, but upgrading 1G of RAM costs about $120.

Vista Wars II

2007-01-29T15:27:00.000-08:00

I have a big problem with WGA. If you need to replace your motherboard, hard drive, and power supply—as I did recently for my girlfriend's computer when it suffered a catastrophic meltdown—you then need to go to Microsoft with cap in hand, begging them to let you install Windows. Most of the time, they’ll be reasonable (you hope) and give you a new key. But that’s not guaranteed.

There are well-documented examples on the Internet of Windows users who have been locked out of their computer for no fault of their own. Chances are, you’ll get away with it, but the fact is, you’re taking a gamble with WGA.

Why should consumers have to put up with this nonsense?

R

On 1/29/07 1:46 PM, "Ajith Shanmuganathan" wrote:

I have no problem with WGA, if you don't authenticate the software it'll go into safe mode. If you have to re-install the software, your old key should work.

Vista Wars

2007-01-29T15:25:00.000-08:00

And you don’t think Microsoft has the economic clout to resist the IP owners? C’mon.

I bet Apple won’t kiss their asses...

Now here’s the $64,000 question (literally):

How much are you spending to upgrade all your computers to Vista? Or are you leeching off your company (i.e., pirating)?

Assuming you’re upgrading to Home Premium, you’re spending $180 CDN per computer. Three computers, $616 (tax incl.).

If you’re upgrading to Ultimate, you’re spending $300 per computer. Ouch! Some people have more money than sense.

R

On 1/29/07 1:46 PM, "Ajith Shanmuganathan" wrote:

Many of Vista's DRM technologies exist not because Microsoft wanted them there, they were developed at the behest of high-powered intellectual property owners.

I have no problem with WGA, if you don't authenticate the software it'll go into safe mode. If you have to re-install the software, your old key should work.

In general Vista is a big improvement over XP. I installed Vista Ultimate x64 in less than 1/2 an hour and it detected all my hardware flawlessly. My 3 year old Lexmark printer is the only thing that is waiting for drivers. The Aero interface is clean and efficient, the font is much easier to read than in XP. The rotating blue/green busy-cursor is really cool. I like the predefined gadgets for the weather, time, and RSS feed on the desktop.

Security is much better, it is now possible to run all the time in non-admin mode and just sudo into admin mode to do maintenance. The filesystem seems more locked down and IE seems more secure as well.

32 bit apps run fine, and I haven't seen any issues with compatibility.

Performance is much better than XP. Programs load almost instantaneously and feel far more responsive than XP. The base O/S uses about 600M of RAM, but upgrading 1G of RAM costs about $120.

File & program navigation and searching is a bit clunky. I like the adaptive menus, but it is not initially obvious how to add menu items. The program menu expands down and not sideways, which I don't like.

I plan on upgrading my other computers to Vista in the next little while. I find it difficult to use XP on my laptop, now.

- Ajith

CNET reviews Windows Vista

2007-01-28T12:08:00.000-08:00

CNET review of Windows Vista

Conclusion
Perhaps we're spoiled, but after more than five years of development, there's a definite "Is that all?" feeling about Windows Vista. Like cramming an info-dump into a book report the night before it's due, there certainly are a lot of individual features within the operating system, but the real value lies in their execution--how the user experiences (or doesn't experience) these--and like the info-dump, we came away shaking our heads, disappointed. Compared with Mac OS X 10.4, Windows Vista feels clunky and not very intuitive, almost as though it's still based on DOS (or at least the internal logic that made up DOS). Despite the addition of a system-wide, built-in Search, and various efforts to break away from staidly old directory trees, you still need to drill down one level to even access Search. And there are far too many dependencies on Microsoft products; this is not a very objective operating system, as preference is always given to Microsoft products (of which there are many), from MSN Search to RSS feeds only from Internet Explorer. But is Windows Vista a bad operating system? No. It's just a disappointment for PC users who hoped that Microsoft would deliver something truly exciting to finally leapfrog ahead of Apple. They failed. But stick around; this is just Windows Vista 1.0. Windows Vista Service Pack 1 is due out sometime before the end of the year. Windows Vista SP1 promises to fix what's known to be wrong within Windows Vista and should offer a few concrete reasons to switch.

I concur. Vista is disappointing. After 5 years of development delays and $6 BILLION in R&D, this is the best they could come up with?! There is no compelling reason to upgrade from Windows XP. Period.

Vista Pricing, Part 2

2007-01-27T11:42:00.000-08:00

In the United States, CompUSA offers Windows Vista, as well as other Operating Systems, at the following prices:

Vista Ultimate: $400
Vista Ultimate Upgrade: $260

Vista Home Premium: $240
Vista Home Premium Upgrade: $160

Now look at Mac OS X Tiger (which is most comparable to Vista Ultimate): $130

So Vista Ultimate = OS X and you pay 3X as much for Vista? Thanks, but no thanks.

Compare Vista with a variety of Linuxes:

Linspire: $60
Xandros Desktop: $70
openSUSE: free
Ubuntu: free

Even "OEM" versions of Vista (at half-price) are overpriced compared to OS X and Linux!

Anyone who pays retail for Vista should have the word "Sucker" emblazoned on his forehead...

Vista Pricing

2007-01-27T11:16:00.000-08:00

Check out Futile Shop for prices on Windows Vista...

Vista Ultimate: $500

Vista Ultimate Upgrade: $300

Vista Home Premium: $300

Vista Home Premium Upgrade: $180

(“Upgrade” means that you MUST have a previous version of Windows installed! F*cking PITA. I’d NEVER buy an Upgrade version...)

These prices are very high. You’d have to be a mentally retarded consumer to spend this much money on an Operating System. Now let’s look at “OEM” prices...

At Greytech:

Vista Ultimate (OEM): $280

Vista Ultimate Upgrade: $289

Vista Home Premium (OEM): $170

Vista Home Premium Upgrade: $225

(Greytech doesn’t offer OEM versions of Upgrade edition.)

Still pretty damn high prices. Unless you’re buying a brand new computer with Vista (Home Premium) preloaded, it makes no f*cking sense whatsoever to buy Windows Vista!

Microsoft is gouging you. Compare their prices with, say, Mac OS X: $149 for the full version.

Or compare with Novell SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop: US$125 for a 3 Year Subscription. This is again the full OS, not some stripped down version like Vista Home Premium.

Or compare with Novell openSUSE, which is the SAME software but open source: FREE!

In what universe does it make sense to PAY for Microsoft’s products???

MIT Technology Review: Uninspiring Vista

2007-01-24T20:24:00.000-08:00

"Playing with OS X Tiger in order to make accurate comparisons for this review, I had a personal epiphany: Windows is complicated. Macs are simple."

Here’s a terrific review of Windows Vista:

http://www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/17992/page1/

And my deepest-seated reasons for preferring Windows PCs--more computing power for the money and greater software availability--have evaporated in the last year. Apple's decision to use the same Intel chips found in Windows machines has changed everything. Users can now run OS X and Windows on the same computer; with third-party software such as Parallels Desktop, you don't even need to reboot to switch back and forth.

Siberian Tantalus

2007-01-22T16:32:00.000-08:00

If you ever come across an avatar in Second Life named Siberian Tantalus, know that it’s me. He looks like a young clubgoer, with a big mop of black hair, and dressed in modern hip clothes.

The last name “Tantalus” was chosen because of its affiliation with Star Trek, the original series (the Tantalus Field used in “Mirror, Mirror”; the Tantalus penal colony in “Dagger of the Mind”).

The first name “Siberian” is my way of paying homage to the Amur (or Siberian) Tiger, an endangered species close to my heart. (A valuable print by Alan Hunt called “Siberian Gold” hangs in my dining room—it shows a pair of Siberian Tigers in the middle of winter.)

Why Not to Buy Vista, Part 2

2007-01-18T05:41:00.000-08:00

4 "Reasons" to Dump Linux

Okay, so I love Linux, but maybe when you think about switching from XP, you should consider Vista. Here are my top four reasons you should move to Vista instead of Linux.

Reason number one: Linux is boring. When I run Linux, I don't have the excitement of wondering whether an e-mail, IM, or Web page is going to give my system the latest worm or virus. Where's the fun in that? I know Microsoft promises Vista represents significant and noticeable changes to the operating system, locking it down in the interest of security . . . Oh, wait, I'm quoting from a 2003 story about XP SP2. Silly me.

I'm sure Microsoft will turn in a secure OS this time. Just look at Internet Explorer 7—it's much more secure! It took almost a whole day before the security company Secunia found that a hacker could trick IE7 into showing malicious content by spoofing a pop-up window opened on a trusted site.

I know some of you think that the only reason Windows gets all the neat malware is because it's so popular. Why would anyone attack Linux? Just because 60 percent of the world's 100 million Web sites run Linux, that's no reason to try to crack Linux. No, it's not that Windows has historically been as secure as a papier-mâché fortress; it must be because Linux just isn't very popular.

Reason number two: Linux is a pain to set up. With Linux, you need to put in a CD or DVD, hit the enter button, give your computer a name, and enter a password for the administrator account. Heck, you could break a nail that way! Almost all early customers of Vista will need to redeem their upgrade coupons and then replace their new PC's XP with Vista. That'll be loads of fun.

Reason number three: Linux is expensive. Linux is often free, but look at all that time you spend setting it up. Most people will end up buying new PCs with Vista preinstalled. Doesn't everyone and every business have the money to buy new systems? Why, just now I went over to Dell and priced out an OptiPlex 745 minitower with a 1.8-GHz Duo, a DVD±RW and 48X CD-ROM SATA drive, an 80GB SATA hard drive and 2GB of RAM, and a 256MB ATI Radeon X1300 Pro graphics card for an "enhanced Vista Experience." It'll run me only $1,375. Of course, I won't get a keyboard, mouse, or monitor at that price.

With Linux, unless I buy one of those less-than-$1,000 boxes with the OS preinstalled, I have to set it up myself! It took me at least half an hour to set up Linux on a 2.8-GHz Pentium IV PC with 512MB of RAM, a 60GB Ultra ATA/100 hard drive, and an nVidia GeForce4 MX 440 AGP graphics board with 64MB of DDR memory. That system cost me $499.

Reason number four: Linux doesn't have enough apps. Most Linux systems come only with secure Web browsers, like Firefox 2.0; e-mail clients, like Evolution 2.6 and Thunderbird 2.0; IM clients, like Gaim 1.5; office suites, like OpenOffice.org 2.0.4; and so on. By my count, my copy of SUSE Linux has only more than 100 apps. Microsoft gives you Internet Explorer and Outlook Express, the most popular Web browser and e-mail client around...even though they do have a few teeny-weeny security problems. Microsoft also has Office, which . . . oh, wait: You don't get that with Vista, do you?

Just because some apps such as the Juniper Networks' Odyssey wireless LAN client WLAN, Cisco Systems' VPN client, and Norton AntiVirus 10 don't work right with Vista is no reason to think many of your current apps either won't work or will need to be upgraded.

Still, as long as you want to run Microsoft programs at Microsoft prices, Windows is the OS for you! If you really think about it, you can find lots of reasons to run Vista instead of Linux. There just aren't any good ones.

- Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols, PC Magazine

Why Not to Buy Vista

2007-01-17T09:58:00.000-08:00

Windows Vista has better security, a flashy interface, an improved Windows Explorer, integrated search, and a Sidebar with gadgets. Sound exciting? I've been using all of those features for more than a year now, with Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger. As a PC Magazine analyst, I use several Windows PCs and Macs daily. But I do my most critical work on an iMac, because it's intuitive, smooth, and doesn't crash.

If you've been using a Mac, you can sense something tiresomely "me too" about Vista. Mac users famously don't worry all that much about viruses—yes, there are security flaws, but they're promptly patched and seldom attacked. We've got a Dashboard with widgets and the best darn search anywhere.

But even more than all that, Mac OS just works. I haven't installed a device driver since I got this machine, though I've plugged any number of devices into it. I don't get mysterious error messages when I boot up or open Entourage (the Mac version of Outlook). If I want to install a program, I just drag its folder into my Applications folder. If I want to uninstall it, I drag it to Trash. And if you've never used Apple's iLife suite, you're losing out big-time. The interface and integration between iMovie, iPhoto, iTunes, and iDVD are an order of magnitude smoother than anything on the PC platform. Vista will drive new hardware purchases, which I guess is good for hardware manufacturers. Tiger runs on Macs from 2002, on modern Mac Minis that cost $600 new, and on that $9,000 workstation that we all secretly want. Supergeeks have even gotten it to run on home-brew PCs, but I've never done anything like that. Nope. Nuh-uh.

Linux lovers, meanwhile, are flocking to Mac because it delivers what Linux has promised for years: a Unix-based OS with full command line control, that has an interface your grandma could enjoy, thousands of apps, and decent technical support. I tried Linux for a while. It was more stable than Windows, but the apps had rough edges that 20 years of Mac development have polished away.

Vista may catch up to Tiger in a lot of ways, but Apple isn't standing still. This year, Apple will bring us Leopard, with its multiple virtual desktops, further improved search, and—something Tiger has now—the ability to run Windows and Mac OS legitimately on the same machine. I could dip into Windows if I absolutely needed to. For now, though, I don't see any reason to leave the easy, powerful, stable Mac OS.

- Sascha Segan, PC Magazine

'Origami' Done Right

2007-01-16T16:26:00.000-08:00

The iPhone is iPod-attractive and when announced, moved Apple’s stock price up sharply, showcasing the advantage of executing completely on a good idea and then presenting that idea in a way the market could get excited about.

When you realize that Apple only announced 2 major products at MacWorld, yet stole the thunder from all of CES with thousands of vendors and millions of products, you have to feel that there are a lot of humiliated people in and around the consumer technology market today.

http://news.digitaltrends.com/talkback164.html

-----

In the 5 months before the iPhone comes out, these folks will analyze the Apple product and come up with something that could be even better and with a motivation to do so.

Perhaps. But I want to make two points: First, it’s the brilliant integration of iPod/cellphone/mobile computer through the revolutionary “multi-touch” interface that sets iPhone apart from the rest of the market, and other companies will not be able to replicate this kind of innovation anytime soon. Remember, it took Apple over two and a half years of intensive R&D to come up with this. What can Microsoft, Motorola, and Nokia achieve over the next 6 (or even 12) months? Do they have engineering and design talent that can match Apple’s? Microsoft has repeatedly demonstrated that they don’t.

Since Apple has patented the hell out of the iPhone, these other companies will have to come up with totally new and original innovations. Such developments cannot be made on demand. True genius only arises once in a blue moon.

Second, these companies will have to find worthy substitutes for iPod and OS X-based devices. To date, all smartphones have had really wimpy media players and PDA functionality. Again, we’re talking about user interfaces. From the perspective of the consumer, the user interface is the MP3 player, the user interface is the personal computer. This is the challenge for these companies.

Don't be sucked in by Vista's security promise

2007-01-16T16:22:00.000-08:00

Microsoft Watch article

Vista’s most vaunted benefit for upgrading from XP is security. But as you can see, Vista’s security measures are a pain-in-the-ass. Usability suffers.

This proves that Microsoft does not know how to design good software. You can bet your life that Apple would handle security in a far less intrusive manner in OS X. You’ll see that when OS X becomes a real and practical security risk (perhaps in another couple of years)...

Enjoy OS X now...

Mac OS X Shines In Comparison With Windows Vista

2007-01-11T19:27:00.000-08:00

Here’s an excellent review of OS X from Information Week:

Information Week review article

At the UI level, the human level, Vista is different far more often than it is better. Even so, I think it must be said that Vista is indeed an improvement on Windows XP. Honestly, I think that's the only metric that really counts when you think about it: Is Vista better enough than XP to be worth the upgrade? I'll say yes. This may be more of a comment on how bad XP really is more than how good Vista is.

However, is it significantly, or even slightly better than Mac OS X? Maybe in a couple of low-level ways, like the randomizing memory address usage function, or being able to use USB memory sticks as additional RAM, but at the human level? Not even close.

I've yet to see anything in Vista that blows away the Mac OS, even a version of the Mac OS that's over a year old. Microsoft still can't manage to make something simple and easy to use. Vista reeks of committee and design by massive consensus, while OS X shines from an intense focus on doing things in a simple, clear fashion and design for the user, not the programmer.

Here’s a very insightful synopsis of Microsoft’s competence in the OS development field...

While Vista is indeed a major update to Windows, there's a lot of it that is, quite frankly, just Microsoft making up for lost time. The last non-server release of Windows was in 2001 with Windows XP, with only a single major interim update in service pack 2. In the same time, Apple has been steadily releasing updates to Mac OS X on what was a yearly schedule, now around every 18 months.

This means that while Mac OS X has been steadily evolving through 10.0, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3 and 10.4, and is now working towards 10.5, Microsoft was waiting on what would become Vista. When it was obvious the original Longhorn OS wasn't going to happen, they took the Windows Server 2003 code base and used that for the basis of Vista. They also chopped quite a few features out of Vista, most notably the WinFS object-based data storage and management system, which had been promised in various forms since the first blurbs about Cairo in the early 1990s.

So if OS X is already better than Vista, wait until “Leopard” comes out later this year!

101 Uses for a Dead iPhone

2007-01-11T15:52:00.000-08:00

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/11/top_iphone_tips/

My favourite is #8:

You know how it is: you're away at the Mac developers' conference and the sight of all that hardware is getting the joystick twitching. Trouble is, your other half is 5,000 miles away. What's the plan?

Simple: give her the very latest in interactive iPhone pleasuring device, controlled by you via internet connection and featuring a state-of-the-art iWang™ offering thirteen speeds and gyro-controlled rotational capability. As an added bonus, you can view your efforts in real time as your partner's ecstatic movements are exactly reproduced by her Second Life avatar.

CES 2007: The Apple iPhone

2007-01-11T13:30:00.000-08:00

[Sorry, that's "Macworld 2007: The Apple iPhone." I was momentarily confused.]

I just watched the keynote address where Jobs introduced the iPhone. It appears that all of the press coverage does not do it justice.

Jobs’ demonstration of the user interface blew me away! It truly is revolutionary! The interface is unbelievably elegant. It’s dead-easy to use and immensely powerful. I’m comparing it to my Samsung cellphone and Palm TX PDA.

I’m suffering from buyer’s remorse. I have the Palm TX and it’s nowhere near as fun and easy to surf the web as it is on the iPhone. Part of the reason is that the iPhone runs OS X and thus can run desktop-class applications! As a “mobile computer,” the iPhone is far superior to Pocket PC or even the clunky UMPC. I...am...not...exaggerating.

And it’s certainly superior to all other “smartphones” such as the Motorola Q, BlackBerry, and Treo. Windows Mobile is pathetic compared to OS X on this device.

I’m suffering from buyer’s remorse. I have the Samsung cellphone I bought several years ago and while it’s perfectly usable, it feels like a Stone Age tool compared to the iPhone. The random-access voicemail is especially nice.

This is probably the most brilliant example of Apple’s industrial design ever, surpassing the iPod (all flavours), MacBook Pro, Mac Pro, Mac mini, and iMac (G5/Intel)! The hardware is beautiful. The software is brilliant. The interface is sublime. The total package is resplendent.

Apple is really amazing when it comes to interfaces. In 1984, Apple brought the mouse to the masses. In 2001, Apple brought the Click Wheel to the masses. In 2007, Apple brings the “multi-touch” touchscreen (which is at the heart of the iPhone’s amazing interface) to the masses. The iPhone really is a revolutionary device.

Movie Review: Children of Men

2006-12-30T14:27:00.000-08:00

I wanted to see Children of Men because it was directed by Alfonso Cuaron, who directed one of my favourite (foreign) films, Y tu mama tambien, a story about two teenage boys and an attractive older woman who embark on a road trip and learn about life, friendship, sex, and each other (caution: graphic sex scenes).

Children of Men is about a dystopian future where mankind has suffered a global catastrophe: women are no longer fertile. In the year 2027, the youngest person on earth, age 18, dies. Within the next hundred years, man will no longer exist.

Societies around the world have collapsed. Britain is one of the last remaining countries to survive. Consequently, it has a horrendous illegal immigration problem. The state is forced to round up hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants for deportation in huge refugee camps. The government has become fascist—think of an extreme extrapolation of the current Bush administration. In desperation, they enact draconian policies to try to control the population.

An underground movement known as The Human Project tries to find a solution to the infertility problem. But they must act under the radar of the fascist government. Enter Clive Owen who plays Theo, a man enlisted by his ex, Julian (played briefly by Julianne Moore), to escort a miracle pregnant woman to The Human Project. He must do so while avoiding the government, as well as rebels who are trying to secure the unborn child for their own political cause. Theo is assisted by Jaspar Palmer (Michael Caine), a hippie political cartoonist who has gone into a self-imposed exile.

I liked the film, but I felt that it fell short of my expectations. The background story wasn’t as fleshed out as I would’ve liked. But I give it top marks for visceral impact. There’s no question that Cuaron has a unique cinematic style. And it does make you think, being as it is, an eery mirror of our possible future.

The Best of my Blog

2006-12-24T05:20:00.000-08:00

Here's a snapshot of my blog, a recap of the past year or so since I started blogging.

I initially began my blog to chronicle my journey through psychotherapy. There is much here that's deeply personal and very powerful. Most of the posts are in November, 2005, and early December, 2005.

Here's my take on why I shall never marry.

Here's what I look like in real life.

The most powerful force in our lives can be found in this discussion about belief systems. If you don't read anything else on my blog, read this.

Here's the best Valentine's Day message in the world. (February 14th isn't that far off!)

In February, 2006, I began a spiritual transformation when I found this book. I talked extensively about it in the following two months (March and April).

In fact, here's my most seminal blog. Doubtless, it will be extremely difficult for most people to internalize.

I hope you all find things of value here. This blog is my best contribution to the world.

Merry Christmas, everyone!

Why you'll love a Mac

2006-12-23T11:36:00.000-08:00

Watch all 18 of these terrific Mac ads:

http://www.apple.com/ca/getamac/

Note that Justin Long is still the "Mac guy," despite earlier claims that he was too annoying for the public. Read the story here.

I like Justin Long. I think he's great in these ads. I expect they'll sell LOTS of Macs.

Macs are cool. Apple rocks!

Just Say NO to Windows Vista, Part 2

2006-12-22T22:21:00.000-08:00

So, to recap...

Say NO to Windows Vista because of:

Microsoft's anti-piracy measures, which benefit you, the consumer, in no way! Product Activation is a Pain-in-the-Ass, trust me.

Uncompetitive pricing, especially in view of Microsoft's draconian EULA and anti-piracy features. And don't forget hardware upgrade costs (e.g., the Aero graphical interface requires a substantial video card).

Vista's immaturity as a "Version 1.0" product.

Remember, as a consumer you have fair use rights to your software, or at least you should in principle. Microsoft deprives you of your rights and freedom.

You have choice. You have alternatives. Look at either the Apple Mac or Linux...

Just Say NO to Windows Vista

2006-12-22T13:26:00.000-08:00

There are two major reasons, and one major warning, why Windows Vista should be avoided.

First, the EULA, Product Activation, and the Windows Genuine Advantage (WGA) malware. These are Microsoft's anti-piracy measures, which are intrusive, inconvenient, and draconian. For example, look at this End User License Agreement (EULA) nonsense...

4. USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system.

So you can't create a virtual image using Home Basic ($199) or Home Premium ($239). However, the EULA does allow you to use Vista Business ($299) or Vista Ultimate ($399). Hmmm... I wonder why? It couldn't possibly be because those editions cost more, could it? Wanna bet? The fact that there aren't any technical restrictions in place to prevent users from loading Home editions into VMWare, only legal and support barriers, sure lends credence to that supposition.

-----

a. Software Other than Windows Anytime Upgrade. The first user of the software may reassign the license to another device one time. If you reassign the license, that other device becomes the "licensed device."

b. Windows Anytime Upgrade Software. The first user of the software may reassign the license to another device one time, but only if the license terms of the software you upgraded from allows reassignment.

As I read this, you go to the store and buy a copy of Vista, which you install on a PC you had in your office. A year later, another PC becomes available that's a bit more up to date, so you decide to transfer your Vista license to that machine.

You're now finished with that Vista license. Done. Game over, man. Whether you shelled out $199 for Home Basic or broke the bank with the $399 Ultimate makes no difference. You've reassigned the license twice, and that's all that Microsoft allows.

Here's something else that should piss you off:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/02/17/microsoft_oem_shocker/

Just look at these excerpts from their Q&A document...

9. Can I transfer my operating system license from an old PC to a new one?
ANSWER. Not unless it was purchased as a Full-Packaged Product from a retail store (i.e., Windows in a box). Current OEM licenses for all Microsoft operating system products are not transferable from one machine to another. The End User License Agreement (EULA) governs the terms for transfer of licenses. Some EULAs for copies of certain older OEM operating system products (i.e., MS-DOS®, Windows® 3.1, and Windows for Workgroups 3.1) distributed in 1995 or earlier may permit transfer of the OEM operating system software license under limited circumstances. (See Software Product Transfer section of your End User License Agreement.)

10. If I “retire” a PC with an OEM license on it, can I use that software on a new PC?
ANSWER. No. To put it simply, OEM product is “married” to the original PC on which it was installed. Current OEM licenses are not transferable from one machine to another. The software cannot be moved from PC to PC, even if the original PC it was installed on is no longer in use. This is true for all OEM software – operating systems and applications.

11. Rather than purchase completely new PCs, my organization performs in-place upgrades to the hardware on many of our computers. We often times only replace the motherboard, processor, and memory. Since the COA is still on the case and the OS is still installed on the hard drive, this computer is still licensed, right?
ANSWER. Generally, you may upgrade or replace all of the hardware components on your computer and maintain the license for the original Microsoft OEM operating system software, with the exception of an upgrade or replacement of the motherboard. An upgrade of the motherboard is considered to result in a "new personal computer." Microsoft OEM operating system software cannot be transferred from one computer to another. Therefore, if the motherboard is upgraded or replaced for reasons other than a defect then a new computer has been created, the original license expires, and a new full operating system license (not upgrade) is required. This is true even if the computer is covered under Software Assurance or other Volume License programs.

Sheesh. This EULA crap makes my blood boil.

As for WGA, look at this:

Windows: Genuinely Disadvantaged

If a piece of software quietly installed itself, couldn't be removed, and phoned home with information about your system, you'd probably call it spyware. Microsoft has another name for it: Windows Genuine Advantage. Last April, Microsoft began distributing WGA as a "critical" Windows update that transmitted data back to Redmond after every reboot and nagged owners of counterfeit copies of XP (and some legit ones) to pony up for the genuine article.

WGA's installation and disclosure process caused angry users to sue the software giant. Microsoft backed off, slightly, by letting people shut off the nagging and reducing how often the software phoned home. But it still maintains that WGA exists to protect us from the evils of Windows piracy.

- from PC World

Also, these anti-piracy measures violate consumers' fair use rights. As a consumer, I have the right to install the operating system on more than one home computer, as long as I am the only user. Product Activation and WGA prevent this.

==========

Second, the prices of the Windows products. Windows Vista Home Premium will cost $239. That's just the Home Premium version. The full, professional version with all the bells and whistles, Windows Vista Ultimate, will cost $399!

Compare those prices to the price of Mac OS X ($129) or Linux (FREE!). And neither of these products have the draconian EULA or intrusive anti-piracy measures of Windows Vista. Morever, both OS X and Linux are the full, professional versions, with all the bells and whistles...no extra charge!

Microsoft will also make available "upgrade" versions of Vista which will require that you already have Windows installed. The upgrade versions cannot be installed by themselves only. For this reason, the upgrade versions are not desirable. Nevertheless, the upgrade versions cost $159 for Home Premium and $259 for Ultimate. Did I mention that Linux is free?

Oh, and one more thing: in addition to Vista's pricing, there's also the hardware upgrade costs. For example, the Aero graphical interface requires a pretty substantial video card for its 3D and transparency effects.

==========

And the major warning? This first version of Windows Vista, "Version 1.0," will have numerous problems, such as poor device driver support, application compatibility issues, and the bugs and quirks that are an inevitable part of any "Version 1.0" product. I strongly recommend that, should you decide to adopt Windows Vista, you wait at least until Service Pack 1 comes out. I expect Service Pack 1 sometime in 2008.

Bad Vista

2006-12-19T11:04:00.000-08:00

http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/vista/bad_santa.html

Microsoft's sense of self preservation doesn't make the company or Vista evil, as BadVista insinuates.

Gates is a technologist giving away money to help others, which is social activism.

Microsoft adheres to a philosophy of licensing software, as does FSF in its pursuit of the GNU.

Microsoft created Windows as a platform for building on products, not as a platform for making philosophical arguments.

Self-preservation leads Microsoft to do many wrong/unethical things. One only needs look at Microsoft’s history.

Gates is a philanthropist and social activist—Microsoft is not. What have Steve Ballmer and the current Microsoft management done for the social good?? Then recount all the harm that has been done to us by Windows...

Windows is a platform for building products, yes, but it’s also an instrument for our enslavement, our loss of individual freedoms and rights. Can we spell D-R-M, boys and girls? How about E-U-L-A?

BadVista may not be perfectly objective, but nor is Wilcox. Both sides have an agenda. But whereas BadVista has an honourable agenda—to fight for consumers’ freedom—what is Wilcox’s (and Microsoft’s) agenda? To push Windows (and Windows upgrades) and line Microsoft’s coffers!

In the same Friday statement, John Sullivan, FSF's program administrator, called Windows restrictive and new Vista features a "Trojan Horse to smuggle in even more restrictions." Oh? Linux isn't a Trojan Horse for spreading the GNU?

I love the way Wilcox twists words to suit his own agenda. C’mon, Linux isn’t a Trojan horse for anything...there’s nothing wrong with GNU...you still have the freedom to run commercial software or do anything else you want with your computer. With Vista, OTOH, you are limited by DRM to what you want to do with your software and media content. And you have an insanely draconian EULA.

FSF and GNU are about freedom. Microsoft and Vista are not.

R

On 12/18/06 11:44 AM, "Richard Eng" wrote:

http://badvista.fsf.org/

“Vista is an upsell masquerading as an upgrade. It is an overall regression when you look at the most important aspect of owning and using a computer: your control over what it does. Obviously MS Windows is already proprietary and very restrictive, and well worth rejecting. But the new 'features' in Vista are a Trojan Horse to smuggle in even more restrictions. We'll be focusing attention on detailing how they work, how to resist them, and why people should care.”

“BadVista.org will focus on the danger posed by Treacherous Computing in Vista. Commonly called Trusted Computing in the industry, it is an attempt to turn computers from machines controlled by their user into machines that monitor their user and refuse to operate in ways that manufacturers don't authorize.”

Also, help fight DRM...

http://www.defectivebydesign.org/en/node

Movie Review: Shut Up & Sing

2006-12-19T08:52:00.000-08:00

This is one of the most emotionally moving documentaries I have ever seen. And one of the year’s best films.

It chronicles the story of how the Dixie Chicks became pariahs when the lead singer, Natalie Maines, uttered an insult to President Bush at a concert in London, England, on the eve of the Iraq War. She said she was ashamed that the President of the United States came from her home state of Texas.

With this remark, she drew intense hatred from her Country & Western fans in conservative middle America. Radio stations were forced by these fans to stop playing the Dixie Chicks’ music. The Dixie Chicks received numerous death threats. They were labeled as traitors.

At one point in the film, the Dixie Chicks tour had to consider how to secure themselves at a Dallas concert. They were fearful that a whack job would smuggle in a handgun and shoot the Chicks on stage. The fear was palpable.

I’ve never liked Country & Western music, but now that I know the vast majority of Country & Western fans are conservative rednecks who place blind loyalty far above any sense of morality and ethics (blind loyalty to George W. Bush), I’m glad I shall never listen to Country & Western.

In fact, now that the Dixie Chicks have been forced to shift their career to a different music genre, I shall start buying their albums. Immediately after the movie, I dropped by HMV and bought their latest album, “Taking the Long Way,” featuring the hit single, “Not Ready to Make Nice.”

One funny thing I noted in the film... Shortly after the news of Natalie Maines’ remark rang around the globe, the Dixie Chicks’ manager cautioned them to be careful with their PR image. He said that Bush’s rating was sky-high and that the Iraq War was going extremely well, therefore, the Chicks’ position with the public was on shaky grounds.

Why is this funny? Because Bush’s rating today is the LOWEST in US history, and the Iraq War is a complete disaster—the Iraq Study Group is trying to find an exit strategy.

Early in the film, there was archival footage of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld saying that there was absolutely no doubt the Iraqis had WMDs. Absolutely no doubt. This is a position of absolute certainty. How ironic that later on, the Bush administration would say they were wrong—that they had bad intelligence.

Um, forgive me but, isn’t this a monumental logical disconnect?? Before they knew they had bad intelligence, they were absolutely certain the Iraqis had WMDs. But after they learned of the bad intelligence, everybody conveniently forgot that the administration had been absolutely certain. This proves you can’t believe ANYTHING the government tells you! Lying is a fundamental part of their job description.

Anyway, Shut Up & Sing is a must-see film. I can’t believe I almost passed on this movie. Very strongly recommended.

So here’s my revised list of the year’s Top Ten:

V for Vendetta
Casino Royale
The Departed
Apocalypto
Inside Man
Match Point
The Descent
Lady in the Water
Shut Up & Sing
An Inconvenient Truth

Movie Review: Blood Diamond

2006-12-16T12:07:00.000-08:00

Blood Diamond stars Leonardo diCaprio as a diamond smuggler named Danny Archer in Sierra Leone who teams up with a farmer named Solomon Vandy (Djimon Hounsou) to find a rare pink diamond buried by the farmer when he was captured by rebels. Vandy wants to find his son, who has been recruited and brainwashed by the rebels, and he needs Archer’s help.

The film’s not-so-subtle agenda is to persuade us, the audience, that conflict diamonds fund wars and terrorism in Africa and that we should not buy diamonds because we can never be sure that they’re not conflict diamonds. It is a very persuasive argument. (The film shows how conflict diamonds from Sierra Leone are “laundered” in neighbouring Liberia and once they make it to market, they are completely indistinguishable from legal diamonds.)

The diamond industry disingenuously claims that only 15 percent of the world’s diamond trade consists of illegal diamonds, but regardless of whether or not you believe the numbers, the fact is, when you buy a diamond, there is a very real possibility that you have blood on your hands, that you’ve helped to kills thousands in Africa.

Add to this the fact that the diamond industry hoards and holds diamonds in order to artificially maintain their high prices (obviating the free market), and it is clear that only fools would pay so much money for pretty stones. Fools and people without a conscience.

DiCaprio gives a very strong performance, one of his best I think. (Earlier this year, he gave another terrific performance in The Departed. This is a very good year for diCaprio!)

Hounsou is also excellent. I remember him well from Gladiator. But here, he gives a truly memorable performance.

While the movie is a little preachy, overall I give it a hearty Thumbs Up. I really liked it. And if you care at all about the plight of Africa, you will see this film.

But most importantly, boycott diamonds!! For the sake of your soul.

Movie Review: Apocalypto

2006-12-16T11:53:00.000-08:00

I really enjoyed this movie! I think it’s one of the year’s best. (So I have to revise my Top Ten list, after all. My job is getting tougher.)

Mel Gibson has crafted a beautiful, if blood-soaked, masterpiece. At the twilight of the Mayan civilization, hordes of warring Mayans sweep across the nation, ravaging one territory after another. They take prisoners for purposes of slavery and human sacrifices to their sun god.

A young man, named Jaguar Paw, hides his pregnant wife and young son in a hole in the ground. Then he’s captured and witnesses the (gory) death of his father. Eventually, he escapes and races to save his family, pursued by his captors and trying to outrun the rains that will drown his family.

The film’s gore is extraordinary, on par with The Passion of the Christ. At a Mayan temple, we see people being sacrificed on the altar, their chests cut open and their hearts ripped out, still beating. Then their heads are cut off and tossed down the long temple stairs. Then their bodies follow down.

Later, we see the killing fields, where thousands of headless corpses blanket the ground.

As you can imagine, the fight scenes are extremely realistic, with head wounds that gush with blood, and spears and arrows that skewer the bodies.

As horrific as the film is to watch, it is also a beautiful, magnificent story of courage and strength and desperation. The performances are superb and Gibson’s direction is right on. While the bloody gore is unsettling, it is not in my opinion gratuitous. Gibson uses it to properly illustrate the story and show us what life may have been like in those barbaric times. I always admire films that serve the purpose of a time machine for us, the audience.

All the dialogue is in the native Mayan tongue with subtitles.

So here’s my revised list of the year’s Top Ten:

V for Vendetta
Casino Royale
The Departed
Apocalypto
Inside Man
Match Point
The Descent
Lady in the Water
An Inconvenient Truth
Thank You for Smoking

Complexity in the Modern World

2006-12-15T08:47:00.000-08:00

If there is any person on earth who can claim to be a bona fide television expert, it’s me, having logged in something like 80,000 hours of TV watching in my lifetime. So trust me when I say this...

Digital television sucks, compared to the old analog television that I’ve watched most of my life. Especially High Definition television.

Ever since I got HDTV for my home, I’ve encountered numerous incidents of picture corruption (decoding glitches that lead to visual artifacts) and sometimes total blackout from a HD channel. A very frequent problem is that a HD channel would fail to broadcast a HD program in 16:9 format, forcing me to watch the show in 4:3 aspect ratio.

When I used to watch analog, I would experience broadcast difficulties maybe half a dozen times a year, typically due to bad weather conditions. But with digital and HD, I see problems and glitches every f*cking day!!

This merely reinforces my belief that computer high tech is to blame. Computers are used everywhere in our world today, and wherever computers are embedded, glitches ensue. It all boils down to one thing: sloppy engineering and the failure to manage complexity.

This is the bane of the modern world. We have to live with it because we cannot go backward. But it saddens me that we shall all be saddled with endless glitches from now till the end of time...

Cuisinart Cookware

2006-12-15T07:16:00.000-08:00

I got this Cuisinart 7 Pc. Classic Cookware Set for my girlfriend for Christmas, in keeping with my all-kitchen-stuff Christmas...

Kitchen Stuff Plus cookware

I have a Cuisinart 12 Pc. Classic Cookware Set myself and I'm very pleased with it. Great quality at a very reasonable price. (Although, if money were no object, I'd buy All-Clad copper-core or Lagostina copper-core cookware.)

- Iron Chef Richard

Hattori Hanzo of Rice Cookers

2006-12-15T07:07:00.000-08:00

“The Zojirushi, known to me as the Hattori Hanzo in its class.”

Gizmodo rice cooker review

Cuisinart beating a Japanese branded rice cooker?! Honto-desuka? Doshite? Dame-dai-o! Silvania beat Sony again? How can this be? What is the world coming to???

What’s next?! a WOK made in Czech Republic beating those made in China?

They must have used the wrong cooking cycle for the Zojirushi in the wrong cycle. Cooking white rice in it is supposed to take anywhere from 48-55 minutes, not a mere 44 minute average. They must have been using the quick cycle, which is probably why they got somewhat inconsistent results, which is completely possible if they ran cycles after cycles (which would probably never happen in real life since it takes so long to cook one batch of rice).

Even in Japan, the Zojirushi cookers were top of the line. I think that there was something wrong in that test. Especially since their average cooking time was so low compared to the time that it would take.

What the hell does "Chris Null" have in his genetic code that specially enables him to discern good rice from Uncle Ben's? I’m not convinced. I’ll put my fuzzy logic vs. the white-bread Cuisinart any day. Brian Lam... You’re that much closer to being excommunicated for peddling this culturally biased smut.

This is ridiculous. I've owned that exact model Zojirushi for five years now. It plays a song when it starts and when it’s done and often takes less than 30 minutes to cook rice (it has a "quick" setting as well). The rice is always good as long as you are consistent with how much water you put in there (my girlfriend tends to put in too much water so when she makes it the rice is sort of mushy). It’s easy to clean, it has a retractable electric plug, and I can come home to perfect rice (or porridge!) if I set it beforehand. Furthermore, it re-heats rice that you leave in there and it still tastes good. I've used this cooker 3-4 times minimum a week for five years and it’s never let me down. It’s worth every penny. (However, the Sanyo I hear is pretty good... but I wouldn't trade my Zojirushi in for anything.) Wired is on crack.

-----

"I'm done doing what I swore an oath to God 28 years ago to never do again. I've created, "something that kills people." And in that purpose I was a success. I've done this, because philosophically I'm sympathetic to your aim. I can tell you with no ego, this is my finest sword. If on your journey, you should encounter God, God will be cut."
Hattori Hanzo, Kill Bill: Vol. 1

Hattori Hanzo: What brings you to Okinawa?
The Bride: I'm here to see a man.
Hattori Hanzo: Oh yeah? You have a friend living in Okinawa?
The Bride: Not quite.
Hattori Hanzo: Not a friend?
The Bride: I've never met him.
Hattori Hanzo: Never? Who is he, may I ask?
The Bride: Hattori Hanzo.
Hattori Hanzo: [Serious, switches to Japanese] What do you want with Hattori Hanzo?
The Bride: [Japanese] I need Japanese steel.
Hattori Hanzo: [Japanese] Why do you need Japanese steel?
The Bride: [Japanese] I have vermin to kill.
Hattori Hanzo: [English] You must have big rats if you need Hattori Hanzo's steel.
The Bride: [English] Huge.

My New Rice Cooker

2006-12-15T06:56:00.000-08:00

I may have made an inferior choice... There is evidence that Sanyo makes the best rice cookers in the world!

This model is much cheaper than my Zojirushi and rates very highly:

Sanyo at Amazon

However, beware of this user comment:

I was very excited to get this cooker. I've been searching for quite some time for a microprocessor-controlled rice cooker that didn't expose my food to an aluminum or teflon/silverstone cooking surface. The advertised "titanium-coated non-stick cook pot" convinced me this was going to be the closest I would get to stainless steel. Titanium should be fairly inert, I thought, I didn't know there were other kinds of non-stick coating. I was wrong. Yes, the cooker is made very well, and the cooking pot is very heavy gauge aluminum with a titanium coating. The bad news is, Sanyo chose to coat the inside of it with a "fluorine-based non-stick". AAARGH! What was the point of the titanium coating...? So it is being shipped back. So far as I know, there is only one rice cooker on the market that offers a stainless steel cooking surface, and it is little more than an enormous "crock pot" with a stainless steel pot replacing the "crock". It has neither the compact size nor wonderful features of this Sanyo, but at least one doesn't slowly poison themselves by cooking with it...

Wired magazine rates Sanyo much, much higher than Zojirushi:

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/play.html?pg=15

And so does cooking.com:

http://www.cooking.com/products/shprodde.asp?SKU=314992

All of their rice cookers

However, my problem with Sanyo is their name! All my life, I’ve associated Sanyo with cheap, shoddy products. Think about it—there has to be a good reason why the (3.5 cup) Sanyo costs $100 while the (3 cup) Zojirushi costs $130. (The MSRP comparison is even more stark, with the Sanyo costing $100 while the Zojirushi costs $165.)

As Robert Heinlein said, TANSTAAFL. (There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.)

R

On 12/12/06 9:42 AM, Richard Eng wrote:

I could’ve bought this very similar rice cooker (for $180):

http://www.zojirushi.com/ourproducts/ricecookers/ns_lac.html

However, I chose the KCC05 for several reasons:

It’s $15 cheaper.
It’s made in Japan. The LAC05 is made in China. I believe made in Japan is better.
It has a more familiar, traditional look. The LAC05 (with the stainless steel cladding) looks like a clock/radio with a CD player—frankly, I think it looks ugly. The KCC05 is downright cute!

I believe the LAC05 is intended for the North American market. Why do I say that?

First, its cosmetic design is a standout from the rest of the Zojirushi line. All the other rice cookers have a traditional look that suits the Far East markets. The LAC05 can be mistaken for a clock/radio at first glance, disguising its purpose—North Americans would love that.

Also, the stainless steel cladding makes it more durable. You know how North Americans just love to abuse their appliances.

Second, the instruction manual is in English only. My KCC05 manual is in four languages (English, Japanese, Chinese, Korean). Also, the instruction manual is very nicely organized and clearly written. My KCC05 manual is sloppy and requires careful reading. (Orientals don’t need no stinking manuals.)

Also, the LAC05 is a much more complex design—the manual shows all kinds of special instructions, including a variety of audio tones and even error codes! North Americans love high tech, geeky stuff like that.

Third, the design of the LAC05 is idiot-proof. It has separate functions for white/mixed rice, brown rice, sushi rice, and congee. My KCC05 has two functions, one for white/mixed/brown rice and one for congee/sushi rice. By combining the white rice function with the brown rice, the KCC05 requires some trial and error to use well—North Americans would hate that. (Brown rice requires a bit more water to be added.)

Fourth, the LAC05 is the only Zojirushi that’s made in China. Why is that? Perhaps it’s a cost issue. Or perhaps Zojirushi feels that North American consumers don’t deserve made in Japan.

Fifth, the LAC05 uses more power (450 W) compared to the KCC05’s 310 W. North Americans love high-powered gadgets! They’re such a wasteful bunch of f*cks (note their penchant for SUVs and muscle cars).

FYI, the LAC05 is a very recent model—Amazon has only 3 user reviews (since September) for it. (Also, the salesman told me so.) The KCC05 has 82 reviews (since year 2000!!). This makes my rice cooker very mature, having been field-tested for 6 years!

On 12/11/06 12:03 AM, Richard Eng wrote:

I picked up this rice cooker today at Pacific Mall:

http://www.zojirushi.com/ourproducts/ricecookers/ns_kcc.html

Regular $180, I got it for the special price of $165.

Yesterday, I picked up the Hamilton Bitch toaster ($72) and the Henckels Cologne series 8” vegetable cleaver ($36) [ http://www.fantes.com/images/6947cleavers.jpg ].

This Xmas, it’s all kitchen stuff for me...

- Iron Chef Richard

My New Toaster

2006-12-09T07:10:00.000-08:00

I finally got my new toaster! From Sears...

The Hamilton Bitch Eclectrics™ all-metal 2-slice toaster, regular $89.99, for 20% off...only $71.99!

Sears toaster

Meanwhile, HBC still won’t budge on the price of the toaster. Ever since the Yanks took over this venerable Canadian institution, the store has been uncharacteristically stingy on sales and bargains (what ever happened to the Scratch-n’-Sniff sales??). As a result, I’m no longer a big HBC patron.

Thank God for Sears...

Penguins in the Arctic

2006-12-06T13:59:00.000-08:00

I have a pet peeve...

I hate it when people think penguins live in the Arctic. This misconception is so rampant that I have to dispel it with all my might:

National Geographic reference

Athropolis reference

What spurred this rant were two things:

The Coca-Cola commercial that shows polar bears (indigenous to the Arctic) cavorting with penguins.
My neighbour down the street whose Christmas decorations on his front lawn shows a penguin dressed up as Santa.

I’m sure you can list other examples of this misconception.

So let me clear this up for you in no uncertain terms:

Polar bears live in the Arctic.

Penguins live in the Southern hemisphere and Antarctica.

And never the twain shall meet!

Got it?

Nature Abhors a Vacuum

2006-12-05T08:07:00.000-08:00

Microsoft Watch link: Nature Abhors a Vacuum

I won't make excuses for Microsoft. There simply are not enough supporting Windows Vista applications and drivers yet. Vista isn't yet consumer ready. I see the unreadiness as extension of Microsoft's logistical goof that resulted in Windows Vista missing the holiday sales season. I keep asking Microsoft executives, How do you miss Christmas! No one has an answer because there is none. You can't miss Christmas.

As a user, I'll say it: Mac OS X Tiger is unequivocally superior to Windows XP. I wouldn't say the same about Windows Vista, however. Tiger and Vista are more equals, but not really enough. I'll take Vista over Tiger, which I've already done.

Um, I’ll take OS X Leopard over Vista... That’s the smarter move.

(Vista is immature. It has Version 1.0 kinks. And as Joe Wilcox says, it’s not consumer-ready.)

http://thomashawk.com/2006/11/thomas-hawk-buys-mac.html

A little over two weeks ago I walked into the Apple store in Palo Alto and bought myself a new MacBook Pro. Yes, the new sexy Intel dual core MacBook Pro. And I went home and after not using a Mac for over 15 years, put my Dell PC notebook literally in the bookshelf and have been using this new Mac as my primary computer for the past 2 weeks.

And what do I have to say about the experience after two weeks? My God! This is f***ing amazing! For the past 15 years I've pretty much been a diehard Microsoft PC guy. I've mocked the religious zealotry of the cult of Macintosh. I've derided the senseless brainwashing that Steve Jobs seems so elegant at.
...

Call me a convert. Call me a traitor. Call me a heretic. Or call me a fanboy. Welcome me to the club or say it ain't so Joe, but all I can say is that Kristopher is right. It just works. And it feels so great while it does that. It's the best I've felt about using a computer in a long, long time.

100,000

2006-12-03T21:07:00.001-08:00

The Apple Mac Pro is nearly 100,000 times faster than my original IBM PC. It can have up to 100,000 times the memory capacity (16GB/128KB). And if you add a couple of hard drives (for those big media file downloads), it can have 100,000 times the hard drive capacity (2x500GB/10MB).

Because the Mac Pro uses the cool-running “Woodcrest” version of Xeon, it doesn’t need the massive cooling apparatus of the previous G5-based Power Mac. This gives Apple room to add a second optical drive bay but since I see no need for a second SuperDrive, I imagine I’d use it to add a Blu-ray writer when it becomes available.

The Mac Pro also uses RAM heat sinks because the RAM modules will run quite hot. Other innovations include those wonderful hard drive caddies which makes hard drive installation dead easy—why haven’t they thought of this great idea before??

Apple is so good at hardware innovations (I’m reminded of the magnetic power connector on the MacBook Pro, as well as the brilliant screen hinge design). The Mac Pro takes innovation to the next level.

Not only hardware innovations but software innovations, too! OS X “Leopard” will blow Vista out of the water, I’m sure. And you just gotta love iLife and iWork.

Yes, the Mac Pro is the ultimate computer (for the time being). (Not the MacBook Pro because, as much as I admire it, laptops are prone to running really hot and they have limited CPU/memory and hard drive capacities.)

Happy Silver Anniversary, IBM PC!

(See my anniversary blog.)

The PC Product of the Year

2006-12-03T20:25:00.001-08:00

The 2006 PC Product of the Year award goes to:

The Apple Mac Pro!

This award is given by me every year for the one standout product that revolutionizes a major PC category, in this case, high-end desktops/workstations.

The Apple Mac Pro is a computer like no other. It exudes gorgeous build quality. It exhibits beautiful industrial design, with easy access to internal components. It has terrific engineering, providing a quiet cooling solution. It performs like a champ, sporting two dual-core Xeon processors (making for a quad-core machine) perfect for multithreaded applications or multitasking. And it does all this without breaking the bank! People like us can actually afford it!

Look at some professional reviews:

CNET TV

CNET Review

MacWorld Review

We can compare an extremely well-equipped Mac Pro to a similar Dell workstation (as of December 8, 2006 and in Canadian dollars from Apple.ca/Dell.ca):

Mac Pro
Two 2.66GHz Dual-Core Xeon
2GB memory 667MHz
500GB hard drive
NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500 512MB
23” Apple Cinema HD Display
DVD burner
$6,475

Dell Precision Workstation 690
Two 2.66GHz Dual-Core Xeon
2GB memory 533MHz
500GB hard drive
NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500 512MB
24” Dell UltraSharp 2407FP Widescreen display
DVD burner
$6,846

Let’s face it, it’s no contest. Which machine would you rather have sitting on your desk?!

And keep in mind that the Mac Pro is running the fabulous OS X operating system, whereas the Dell is running Windows XP Professional. ‘Nuff said.

This was how PC computing was meant to be. Effortless. Stylish. Safe! With tons of horsepower. The ultimate in Cool! Welcome to the new age of PCs...

If the Mac Pro is a little too rich for you, consider the iMac:

iMac
2.16GHz Core 2 Duo
2GB memory 667MHz
250GB hard drive
ATI Radeon X1600 128MB
20” Widescreen display
Built-in iSight webcam/microphone
AirPort Extreme and Bluetooth
$1,909

Dimension 9200
2.13GHz Core 2 Duo
2GB memory 667MHz
250GB hard drive
NVIDIA GeForce 7300LE 256MB
20” UltraSharp 2007FPW Widescreen display
Logitech Quickcam Fusion webcam/microphone
Wireless G adapter (Bluetooth N/A)
$1,857

The iMac is a heck of a lot more stylish than the Dell Dimension! And, again, there’s OS X, not stinking Windows. (Moreover, Dell is running Windows XP Media Center Edition, a lesser version of Windows XP Professional. Apple's OS X is alway, always, the full version!)

Smalltalk Rocks!

2006-12-01T06:28:00.000-08:00

http://smallthought.com/avi/?p=8

So if Java is a victory for Smalltalk’s implementation choices, and Ruby is a victory for Smalltalk’s language choices, what do you do if you want both? There’s still only one option: use Smalltalk.

People are often surprised when I tell them which language I choose to work in. But where else I find one as expressive as Ruby, with a VM as sophisticated as Hotspot, an IDE as good as Eclipse or better, and a community with 20 years of experience at using those three pieces as an integrated whole? Frankly, I couldn’t make any other choice with a straight face.

Ruby is currently the hottest programming language on the planet. But people are overlooking a superior alternative. Ruby can be pretty accurately and completely described as a dialect of Smalltalk with Algol-inspired syntax and some scripting-friendly extensions. However, Smalltalk has so many other advantages (sophisticated VM, rich and powerful IDE, English-like syntax) that Ruby looks like a poor cousin. Smalltalk also has a superior alternative to Rails: Seaside. So if you're considering switching to Ruby, I strongly suggest you look at Smalltalk as well.

Dynamic versus Static Typing

2006-11-23T04:18:00.000-08:00

People in the 1960s (such as Niklaus Wirth) pushed static typing in languages like Pascal. What evidence was there at that time that the lack of static typing was causing problems in software development? How many millions of lines of code, or how many software projects, did they look at to arrive at this assessment? (Yes, it’s a rhetorical question.)

So for the last four decades, we’ve lived with that static typing legacy, not ever questioning whether it was truly a good thing or not. And now we see anecdotal evidence from the Ruby and Smalltalk communities that perhaps static typing was not the great defensive facility that computer scientists made it out to be. Have we all been blinded by conventional wisdom?

Shouldn’t somebody make a detailed study of this question??

Creeping Featuritis

2006-11-21T19:51:00.000-08:00

From my perspective, Java, C#, and C++ all belong in one category: statically typed, feature-rich, straightjacket programming languages. The static typing imposes a complexity and messiness that outweigh any safety benefits. The innumerable features also needlessly add complexity to the language, making them a poor substitute for “metaprogramming,” which is a powerful facility found in Smalltalk, Lisp, and other dynamic languages. The end result is a basic lack of flexibility and versatility which leads to my term “straightjacket.”

In other words, Java, C#, and C++ are, in my opinion, mere variations of a basic language paradigm. To compare the languages among themselves and say that one is “better” than the other because of this feature or that is a silly exercise in semantics...they share the same essential drawbacks, after all.

We need to get away from static typing. We need a minimalist language, one not encumbered by numerous features of convenience. Language designers just can't help "evolving" their languages by continually adding more and more features. For example, look at C# and Ruby. Beware of Creeping Featuritis.

More on Project Risk

2006-11-19T07:38:00.000-08:00

I share Joel’s sentiments, I really do. I’m not suggesting that enterprises jump whole hog into using a “non-mainstream” language, but they should at least give promising tools a try, starting with pilot projects to suss out any problems with scaling or performance. To continue to play it safe all the time is to miss out on potentially valuable opportunities. No guts, no glory—even in business, this aphorism applies...

Of course, I’m not saying that enterprises should suddenly abandon their Java/C++ teams. All I’m saying is that they should examine new opportunities to improve software quality, efficiency and economics of development. Start with pilot projects and if that produces impressive results, try larger projects. It has to be transitional.

But concerns about social dynamics and internal resistance imply that everyone should stick with Java/C++ for geologic ages. Not allowing for the possibility of improvements makes for dinosaurs and we all know what happened to them.

You can’t allow your staff’s beliefs about Java/C++ to stop you from moving toward better alternatives, not when the potential economic/business gains may be colossal. Change for change’s sake is not good but neither is stagnation.

Train your staff in Smalltalk. Do it in phases or do it in segments of your staff. There are ways to manage resistance.

But don’t let ignorance about the virtues of dynamically typed, purely object-oriented, meta-programming language tools stop you from discovering revolutionary improvements in the software development process. We are on a potential cusp of history...

On 11/19/06 12:02 AM, "nonpartisanartisan" wrote:

Selecting a simpler language is fine ... if you can find sufficient staff trained in that language. If I needed a team of 40 engineers trained in Smalltalk who could communicate and bond with each other I would have a very hard time recruiting these people to begin with. I would be up Sh!t Cr33k without a paddle.

Moving to a new language has a social dynamic of internal people resisting change and hating external people brought it to replace them.

Experienced C++/Java programmers are suddenly "new" inexperienced Smalltalk programmers. High stress. Or else replaced by external people - huge morale problems internally.

Having a limited supply of people, abandoning your own staff and their beliefs in what languages are good, making them feel inadequate helps morale and moves the project along?

Movie Review: Casino Royale

2006-11-19T07:21:00.000-08:00

I’ve been a big James Bond fan all my life. Having seen every film in the franchise, I can tell you with absolute confidence that Casino Royale is the best Bond movie ever made!

To start with, the script is delightfully good. Penned by Canadian Paul Haggis (Crash; Million Dollar Baby), the story is rich with character and emotions. As a result, this is a much darker film than any previous Bond flick. Dark, gritty, with lots of feelings. It reminds me of Batman Begins, another movie that hearkens to the early days of the protagonist, also in dark and gritty tones. Do I detect a pattern emerging from Hollywood?

This is a Bond unlike any other that came before. He lives up to his professional status as Her Majesty’s Secret Service assassin. He kills in cold blood. He looks for all the world like an ordinary man, not even a particularly handsome man (his nose is rather large, his ears are like Prince Charles’, his head reminds me of a mantis head). If not for his incredible physique (which puts even Sean Connery’s to shame), it’s difficult to see his attraction to women. Perhaps it’s his ruggedness and assertiveness that confers on him a sort of je ne sais quoi. At any rate, Daniel Craig pulls it off as a very convincing James Bond.

The story is based on Ian Fleming’s first Bond novel of the same name which follows Bond’s ascension to double-oh status within MI6. This was before the vodka martini that is shaken, not stirred. Before the pimped-out Aston Martin ride. Before the fancy gadgetry from the genius of Q. Before his cold-hearted womanizing. Before his flirting with Moneypenny.

Bond’s mission is to “turn” an international financier of terrorists by cleaning him out at a high-stakes poker game in Montenegro. By bankrupting this man, named Le Chiffre, MI6 hopes that the threat of torture and death at the hands of Ugandan thugs will force him to seek refuge with MI6 and help them in the war on terrorism.

A fine example of how this film departs from the usual Bond formula is a scene where Bond is stripped naked and tortured (having his genitalia pummelled). Now I know that in the last Bond film, Die Another Day, Pierce Brosnan was also tortured. But there, the torture was not graphically displayed as it is here (no, we don’t see his genitalia but boy do we feel the torture!). The scene reminds me of how George Clooney was tortured in Syriana.

The movie also brings us very close to the person that is James Bond. He suffers great emotional loss and Daniel Craig displays this extremely well. This makes Craig the best thespian of all the actors who have played the role. (Sorry, Sean!)

But for those who hanker for the previous Bond movies, we still have some of the great Bond elements. Two Aston Martins are featured, including the brand new (and gorgeous!) DBS. We have two excellent Bond women. Judi Dench returns as M (most would not mention Judi Dench, but for me her presence adds a lot to the film). The exotic locales and beautiful photography are here too. And, of course, we have lots of great action.

Before Casino Royale, my favourite Bond was Sean Connery. He defined the role. He looked the part. But now I have to say, Daniel Craig is a better Bond. With Craig, the franchise has been given new life, new energy. It’s a fresh beginning and I am very impressed.

This is one of my very favourite movies of the year. It may well be one of the year’s biggest box office hits. And that would be well-deserved.

Project Risk

2006-11-18T19:01:00.000-08:00

http://www.whysmalltalk.com/articles/robertson/analysts.htm

Gartner’s numbers are from 2002, but they pretty much apply TODAY as well. Java, Visual Basic, and C++ are still the most prominent of the mainstream programming languages. And the stats on failed software projects couldn’t have changed much in the last 5 years...

Depending on your definition of “failure,” anywhere from 40-70% of all software projects fail to satisfy their key requirements—either they come in very late, or very over-budget, or they just don’t meet end user expectations. “An inordinately large number of large-scale Java projects have been failures.”

Now, far be it from me to blame the failures on the language tools. There are many reasons why projects fail, and very often the finger points to bad management or bad communication or bad analysis. The choice of language tools rarely contributes to failure (though it may cause teething problems and the like). It stands to reason, then, that choosing a non-mainstream language should not significantly increase project risk (unless you choose something really far out on the fringe, like OCaml, Erlang, Haskell, or Lua).

[As an aside, I suggest that Smalltalk is a better choice than Lisp because, while Lisp is not a fringe language, it is quite alien-looking compared to most other languages. At least Smalltalk resembles English in its syntax and is thus extremely readable.]

But why choose an alternative to a mainstream language? Java, Visual Basic, and C++ have been amply proven in the field, and there are huge ecosystems surrounding these languages. Skilled people in these areas are easy to find.

The answer is high productivity, quick and easy prototyping, lower programmer stress, and lower defect rates in the software, to name a few advantages. Some of these help to shorten a product’s time to market. Others improve the chances of meeting end user expectations. But in particular I want to touch on lower programmer stress...

Using a language tool that is simple and easy to master helps to avoid the cognitive effort in managing the complex of language features found in today’s mainstream languages. There is no question that this cognitive effort—subtly, cumulatively, and over time—contributes to programmer stress. People in the software engineering field know exactly what I’m talking about (or perhaps not—it may be too subtle for them to notice). But even if they don’t notice, the stress is still there, and the long-term consequences may include burn-out or job-hopping.

Choosing a language tool that addresses a programmer’s cognitive nature would preserve the efficiency (and sanity) of your programming staff. It may help to reduce turnover and perhaps even improve morale. How can this not be good for your software project?!

With all due respect to Joel Spolsky, he’s dead wrong. Choosing a mainstream language does not significantly improve a project’s likelihood of success, and as Gartner’s data show, it may actually worsen the chances! Choosing something like Smalltalk does not entail greater project risk, and it promises benefits that absolutely cannot be found in today’s mainstream languages.

Java EE 5 Simply Too Complex

2006-11-18T10:15:00.000-08:00

http://www.sdtimes.com/article/story-20061101-02.html

Java is too complicated. (And don’t get me started with C++.) While enterprises may feel Java is the safe choice, they’re also putting you programmers through the wringer...

Life is too short to work so damn hard.

Projects Do not Fail for Technical Reasons

2006-11-18T09:22:00.000-08:00

They Fail for People/Communication Reasons.

What the analysts and pundits don't take into account is how technical choices aid or impede communication. One of the largest problems faced by IT shops is churn - there is always a new silver bullet technology that will solve all the problems. What this means is that most IT shops never gain enough expertise in any given set of tools to be truly productive; they are always moving on to new tools that will theoretically solve the problems better than the old ones.

What developers need is tools that will help improve communication - both between themselves, and between their customers. If the technologies they choose to implement in are complex, then developers will consistently be speaking jargon - solving technical problems instead of business problems. If, on the other hand, developers are given tools that are not complex, they will spend more time solving (and discussing) business problems instead of technical issues. To use a trite example, simpler tools will allow developers to discuss requirements instead of compiler errors. Tools that mostly get out of the way and allow developers to express the intent of their customers are better; tools that layer on complexity and arcane rules stand in the way, and prevent or delay these expressions of intent.

One thing to bear in mind is research from psychology. People can, on average, keep 7 (+/- 2) things in mind at once. Adding to the number of things that need to be kept in mind is not really possible - it's a human limitation. Choosing tools and/or processes that insist on throwing complexity directly in the face of a developer are as sure a recipe for failure as is possible - simply based on the reality of human capabilities. What does this mean? It means that choosing a strict process with many steps and lots of documentary steps is not going to work - the sheer complexity of the process will over burden the average developer. Likewise, choosing a set of development tools that require a steep learning curve will add problems. It will take longer for developers to internalize the rules well enough to be productive. It's a simple fact that projects will not normally be staffed with as many experienced people as you would like - so choosing technologies that make things simpler will get you started sooner.

Where does this drive us?

Processes - pick an agile methodology. A heavyweight, process driven methodology will wear developers down and prevent progress.

Tools - pick an agile toolset. A set of complex tools will likewise wear developers down and prevent progress.

What satisfies these?

Visit the Agile Alliance for tips on process. For tools, take a look at Smalltalk. It's no secret that the Agile Alliance leaders are virtually all from the Smalltalk world; there's a reason for that. Smalltalk is simple and powerful. A beginner can learn it in minutes, and an expert can express a design clearly and tersely. One complaint you'll hear is that Smalltalk has a large learning curve. And Java or C# don't? Smalltalk has 5 reserved words and syntax that fits on a 3x5 card. C# and Java have 50+ reserved words and very complex syntactical rules. It simply is not the case that Smalltalk is harder to learn.

- James Robertson

No guts, no glory

2006-11-16T19:55:00.000-08:00

Joel Spolsky says:

Before you flame me, Ruby is a beautiful language and I'm sure you can have a lot of fun developing apps it in, and in fact if you want to do something non-mission-critical, I'm sure you'll have a lot of fun, but for Serious Business Stuff you really must recognize that there just isn't a lot of experience in the world building big mission critical web systems in Ruby on Rails, and I'm really not sure that you won't hit scaling problems, or problems interfacing with some old legacy thingamabob, or problems finding programmers who can understand the code, or whatnot.

Well, interfacing with old legacy thingamabobs is a typical problem nearly all software projects face. Using Java or C++ certainly doesn’t obviate that. And whether you are using Ruby or Smalltalk, this certainly is not an intractable problem.

And is it true that Java scales well for all types of software projects? I don’t see why Ruby or Smalltalk should have greater scaling difficulties. (In fact, the experiences of Smalltalk enterprise customers show otherwise.)

As for finding programmers who can understand Ruby code, there appears to be a LOT of them around the globe, given the rapidly increasing popularity of the language. Unless you are expecting high turnover rates in your software project (suggesting you have other, more pressing problems), this shouldn’t be a major concern.

So while Ruby on Rails is the fun answer and yes I've heard of 37 Signals and they're making lovely Ruby on Rails apps, and making lots of money, but that's not a safe choice for at least another year or six. I for one am scared of Ruby because (1) it displays a stunning antipathy towards Unicode and (2) it's known to be slow, so if you become The Next MySpace, you'll be buying 5 times as many boxes as the .NET guy down the hall. Those things might eventually get fixed but for now, you can risk Ruby on your two-person dormroom startup or your senior project, not for enterprisy stuff where Someone is Going to Get Fired.

Joel assumes that choosing to develop in a non-mainstream language entails greater risk than any other kind of risk that software projects inevitably have. Is this a reasonable assumption? What evidence can anyone provide?

There probably aren’t enough Ruby projects to offer a good statistical sample. Perhaps this is what enterprises want to see in the way of proof before they accept the risk of using Ruby. But such proof won’t be forthcoming unless or until enterprises take it upon themselves to explore the wonders of dynamically typed, purely object-oriented language tools, such as Ruby and Smalltalk.

I share Joel’s sentiments, I really do. I’m not suggesting that enterprises jump whole hog into using a “non-mainstream” language, but they should at least give promising tools a try, starting with pilot projects to suss out any problems with scaling or performance. To continue to play it safe all the time is to miss out on potentially valuable opportunities. No guts, no glory—even in business, this aphorism applies...

Playing it Safe

2006-11-15T19:30:00.000-08:00

http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/09/01.html

The safe answer, for the Big Enterprisy Thing where you have no interest in being on the cutting edge, is C#, Java, PHP, or Python, since there's so much evidence that when it comes right down to it zillions of people are building huge business-critical things in those languages and while they may have problems, they're not life-threatening problems.

Joel Spolsky talks about playing it safe. For the enterprise market, which is pretty conservative, it's all about making safe choices when it comes to software development projects. It's hard to argue with that. However, with that kind of thinking, we miss opportunities to significantly reduce the time to market of deliverables, the cost of code maintenance, and the labour cost of software engineers. For example, Smalltalk is often lauded for its extremely high productivity, helping to complete software development three to five times faster than using Java or C++. How much is it worth to a company to hire far fewer developers to do the same amount of work? Or to get a product to market much sooner?

Joel says Java and C# are safer because it's easier to find project experts with lots of experience in these languages. There's no question this can be advantageous but let's not overstate it. Having a Java expert on a Java project does not guarantee its success. But having good engineering talent (regardless of programming language) who's not afraid of change does help.

Joel says Java and C# are proven, with huge numbers of successful projects based on these languages. But I can show you eminently successful Smalltalk projects too. Just visit: http://www.whysmalltalk.com/production/index.htm. Cincom VisualWorks has been successfully used in many enterprises, including recently:

Adventa Control Technologies
Federal Express
JP Morgan
Penn State University
Scarborough Research
State of Wisconsin Department of Revenue
Texas Instruments

For proof that Smalltalk is great for web development, look at http://dabbledb.com/, which was developed entirely in Smalltalk and Seaside (the Smalltalk equivalent of Ruby on Rails).

I harp on software tools a lot, but I also know there are other reasons for missed deadlines and slow development. For example, marketing and sales departments overpromising on what you can deliver, poor project scheduling or resource allocation, inadequate requirements gathering, weak analysis, etc. But these are issues that cannot be easily fixed with technology.

The application of superior tools, on the other hand, can relieve a very significant bottleneck. It has been my experience that more than half of the software lifecycle (including maintenance) is spent in the trenches, coding, debugging, testing. Anything you can do here to improve productivity pays off big time. And it’s so easy! Just look around you for language tools with a proven record...

Like Smalltalk.

The Only Sensible Choice

2006-11-15T19:09:00.000-08:00

http://smallthought.com/avi/?p=8

As a language, Ruby can be pretty accurately and completely described as a dialect of Smalltalk with Algol-inspired syntax and some scripting-friendly extensions. If this is going to be the new mainstream, I’m sure any Smalltalker would agree, we could do a whole lot worse. But here’s the rub: all those goodies you get with Java would, at least temporarily, disappear. Ruby has no bytecoded VM, no JIT, and no IDE that can hold a candle to Eclipse or, say, VisualWorks. There’s nothing wrong, particularly, with emacs and interpreters, and working in Ruby is still a pleasure, but there are definitely projects for which the immaturity of the implementation and environment get severely in the way.

Also, “Beyond Java” looks like a book worth reading...

http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/10/12.html

http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/beyondjava/

Bruce Tate has an intriguing notion about the future of Java, and it's causing some agitation among Java developers. Bruce believes Java is abandoning its base, and conditions are ripe for an alternative to emerge.

In Beyond Java, Bruce chronicles the rise of the most successful language of all time, and then lays out, in painstaking detail, the compromises the founders had to make to establish success. Then, he describes the characteristics of likely successors to Java.

C++ too damn complicated

2006-11-15T18:33:00.000-08:00

C++ containers are like three-ring binders: they generally hold objects from a single class (or subclasses of that class). These containers are less flexible than Smalltalk’s, but safer, for any code that attempts to add an object of the wrong class to a C++ container fails to compile. This safety comes at a price, though, because you need to develop a class of container specialized for each kind of object you intend to hold—a SetOfWhale as well as a SetOfInteger. A C++ language feature (templates) simplifies the definition of such container classes, but container libraries in C++ still tend to be unwieldy, complex, and difficult to write. The need for fast, robust containers has spawned a cottage industry for container libraries. Sometimes these libraries are called foundation libraries, to acknowledge their essential place in object programming. Sadly, foundation libraries are sometimes not interchangeable [Standardization will help. The ANSI C++ standard now specifies a Standard Template Library.], because they are often integrated into larger libraries or frameworks that provide other services like windowing or communications or persistence. By contrast, every Smalltalk dialect includes an integrated foundation library—the subclasses of Collection. This library cannot be decoupled from Smalltalk because so much of Smalltalk itself is built using collection classes.

- Chamond Liu

Templates are one of the many, many reasons why C++ is such a bitch to program in. The C++ language itself is inordinately complicated, and as if that weren’t bad enough, the C++ infrastructure is a cumbersome morass of complexity. No wonder C++ software development is so costly and time-consuming!!

And now we see that Java and C# are headed in the same direction.

I’m not saying you should never use C++, but you had better have a damn good justification for it. Use the right tool for the right job. Make sure your reasons are not half-assed.

For most applications, Smalltalk is the right way to go...

OOD and OOP

2006-11-13T18:24:00.000-08:00

The only obstacle to Smalltalk adoption is that people are not comfortable with pure Object-Oriented Programming (OOP). Smalltalk demands that you think entirely and purely in terms of objects and classes. You need to feel totally comfortable with object-oriented design. Hence, the reason I’m reading Chamond Liu’s book “Smalltalk, Objects, and Design.”

I love this book!! It is so well-written, so easy to read, and so elucidating. It may well be the best book on Smalltalk and object-oriented design ever written!

I’m paying a lot of attention to this book because I feel that I need to establish my mindset in a totally and purely object-oriented way. I have to eat, sleep, and think objects and classes. For over twenty years, procedural programming has been drilled into my consciousness, and I’ve got to completely shake that.

I believe that if you establish this object-oriented mindset and then practice with the Smalltalk class library, you will quickly become proficient. Smalltalk is the perfect OOP language, much more so than Ruby or Java or C++.

I highly recommend Chamond Liu’s book. Well worth the purchase price: Amazon.ca.

Smalltalk -- some early thoughts

2006-11-06T17:37:00.000-08:00

Here's a very good blog about one person's first impression of Smalltalk: Smalltalk -- some early thoughts.

I love this comment:

There's no native Regular Expression support. There's a regex library which sucks rubber donkey lungs ('Hello World' regexMatchAll: 'l*'. causes an infinite loop.)

Better than “camel piss”...

Rails versus Seaside

2006-11-06T17:27:00.000-08:00

This is a pretty good blog: Rails and Seaside.

On balance, I think, Seaside is superior to Rails. Not that either is perfect, though.

Nice, though dated, article

2006-10-31T16:52:00.000-08:00

Here's a nice, though dated, article: New Tricks for an Old Dog.

One interesting practical application that uses embedded Smalltalk is an 8-line PBX (private branch exchange) telephone system with integral voice mail... Most amazing, perhaps, is the time scale needed to develop the application: It took four engineers just nine months to bring the product to field testing, and a further three months to go to market.

-----

Smalltalk's fast development times and small development teams are corroborated by numerous practical examples. EDS estimates that development time in Smalltalk is about one-fifth that of development in C++. And a European bank that recently rewrote its client management software using OTI's Smalltalk cut the size of its development team from about 1,000 (COBOL) to fewer than 100 (Smalltalk) programmers, who now write more complex systems in the bargain.

-----

Clohessy claims that only 10% of a typical application is speed-critical, and these speed-critical parts are the only ones that need to be written in C (or assembler).

Or Fortran!

Smalltalk and Fortran!!

2006-10-30T16:51:00.000-08:00

http://www.artima.com/forums/flat.jsp?forum=155&thread=116721

This would be my dream job: writing software in both Smalltalk and Fortran! God, I miss Fortran. What a great language!

[My very first programming language was FORTRAN (in the early 1980’s, I was a bona fide FORTRAN guru). I have a very special place in my heart for Fortran (these days, the name is no longer all capitalized).]

Smalltalk, Objects, and Design

2006-10-28T16:36:00.000-07:00

I really like “Smalltalk, Objects and Design,” by Chamond Liu. This book is well-written, eminently readable, and quite informative. While it is not a deep survey of the Smalltalk language, it is an excellent guide. The book goes well beyond Smalltalk to discuss object-oriented design and software development processes in general.

It is also very well-balanced, giving an honest and upfront view of software development. For example,

The Smalltalk language is easy to learn because it is so small. But the language by itself doesn’t do much. It is powerful only in conjunction with the hundreds of foundation classes and thousands of supporting classes that are part of today’s Smalltalk products. You will have to learn many of these classes before you can write clean Smalltalk code. This takes time and practice.

It also takes time to become proficient in applying the ideas in this book — designing with containers, polymorphism, patterns, and so on. Everyone has an innate ability to understand and talk about objects, but not everyone will work long and hard enough with them to become a good designer. Look at it this way: object-oriented development increases our toolkit of techniques, which gives us more ways than ever to make a mess. Without the maturity that comes with experience, it is harder than ever to pinpoint desirable solutions in this enlarged universe of possibilities.

An object-oriented project is no more likely to succeed than any other project. Out-of-touch leadership, misplaced optimism, complacency, the wrong tools, and all the rest are just as likely to afflict an object-oriented project as any other. Successful projects need business acumen coupled with technological knowhow, and you can find these qualities in conventional projects as well as in object-oriented ones.

GUI builders alleviate tedium. They are a pleasurable addition to our bag of software tools. But they don’t make model-view separations automatic and they divert us from the profoundly challenging task — design.

There’s a good chapter on “Design patterns,” too. Hardly a replacement for the “Gang of Four” classic, but I’m too lazy to read a lot, so I really appreciate this chapter.

I highly recommend the book. If you’re at all interested in Smalltalk or object-oriented design (and you want an easy read), this is THE book to get!

Smalltalk Debate

2006-10-25T16:11:00.000-07:00

I’ve observed that all hard-core C++ programmers have one thing in common: they are performance-obsessed. (This probably spills over in their bedrooms, as well.)

Ted hit the nail squarely on the head: To C++ programmers, “good enough” performance is never good enough. The hacker mentality is that they must write the most terse and efficient code possible in order to impress the heck out of each other. It’s a glorified pissing contest. “My dick is bigger than your dick.”

Since Ajith has studied economics, I am astonished that he doesn’t understand the application of economics in software development. Given the state of today’s hardware, native code applications are no longer the necessity that they used to be; interpreted code is now an acceptable alternative in most application domains.

Why interpreted code? In two words: programmer productivity. It comes down to economics... Hardware costs are no longer a big deal, but labour costs — i.e., programmer labour — are absolutely critical in most software development organizations. Why the f*ck do you think everybody is trying to outsource software development to f*cking India???

If I can hire a Smalltalk developer to do THREE or FOUR times the amount of work that a C++ programmer can do, I’d be f*cking nuts not to go that route! The alternative is to hire THREE or FOUR C++ programmers. At a salary of $80,000 per year, that’s a big, f*cking chunk of your IT budget!

Ajith didn’t answer my question — what application domain is he working in that is so performance-sensitive? Maybe he’s one of the exceptions that must work in C++. If so, I feel sorry for him.

But for the rest of us, we would be wise to look at Smalltalk or Ruby or Python or even Lisp!

Ajith, do you have the gonads to prove that you’re anywhere near as productive as a Smalltalk developer??

R

On 10/25/06 12:21 PM, "Edward (Ted) Doig" wrote:

WTF? Did I personally offend you or something?

Performance is not the Be All and End All of every fucking programming task. Of course you can write it all in a compiled language and it will run with blinding speed and work in a MILSPEC environment and mana will rain down from Heaven and you can go off and write your Turing Award acceptance speech etc. etc. etc.

Yes, I'll be the first to admit that "good enough" ain't necessarily "performance optimal". My point is that what amount of efficiency is appropriate to the task at hand? While you're busy writing your oh-so-efficient STL/C++ program that is gonna run circles around me, I'll have already rattled off my one line of script, got my answer, and have gone out for a beer already. ;-)

I did not, nor did I ever imply, that writing everything in shell script is a panacea, but for certain problem domains, it is more efficient for me overall. So a dedicated C program will run 5x faster. So what? So I get my response back in 25 milliseconds rather than 5 milliseconds. Big deal. I'll learn to live with it.

Your initial argument was based on lines of code, and I provided a counter-argument. You then mention performance, and I assert that it simply doesn't matter in this case. You'd better be careful, Ajith, you're starting to sound even more curmudgeonly than Richard! :-)

Thx - Ted

From: rengranting On Behalf Of Ajith Shanmuganathan
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 10:59 PM
Subject: RE: [rengranting] Studying Smalltalk

Ted,

Come on, no one believes the crap you write.

I've written shells from scratch, I know how inefficient they can be.

I've also seen scripts from hell, so I know script programming is not for novice programmers. If you want write maintainable, fast, robust software in a production environment, you wouldn't choose shell scripts.

Ever heard of process overhead? Your little shell script will be at least 5 times slower than a dedicated C program. Measure the performance, you will be surprised how slow your code is.

I've heard the lame arguments for using PERL and other scripting languages. In reality, these languages suck for just about everything otther very simple tasks.

My STL and GNU library code is definitely orders of magnitude faster than any shell script. So don't be stupid.

- Ajith

Smalltalk Testimonial

2006-10-24T15:51:00.000-07:00

Here’s a nice story about how a C++ game console developer became converted to Smalltalk...

http://smalltalk.org/articles/article_20060919_a1_LearningToTalk_v1.html

As a learning exercise, he wrote a DirectX game entirely in Smalltalk!

Croquet

2006-10-23T15:38:00.000-07:00

Some while back, my friend Norm mentioned Croquet. Well, because I’m immersed in Smalltalk now, I’m looking at all things Smalltalk. So I’m reviewing Croquet in earnest...

http://www.itwales.com/999105.htm#4

http://www.opencroquet.org/about_croquet/index.html

This is exciting! Croquet is the future of operating systems!

There are a number of reasons why we need something like Croquet today. First, the personal computer user interface was cast in amber 20 years ago. This was for various reasons:

* The desktop GUI originally developed by Alan Kay and his colleagues was an extremely successful approach to interacting with the personal computer.

* The emergence of software monopolies removed any encouragement to innovate on the platform. Compare a modern PC of 2004 to the first Macintosh shipping in 1984 and the major difference you will see is color.

* The fact that these dominant systems were created in early bound languages made it impossible to easily modify the foundations of the system either by the developers or by third parties.

Croquet was built to answer a simple question. "If we were to create a new operating system and user interface knowing what we know today, how far could we go?" Further, what kinds of decisions would we make that we might have been unable to even consider 20 or 30 years ago, when the current operating systems were first created? We decided that it was time for an existence proof that innovation could still continue and succeed on the personal computer. We felt that the very definition of the personal computer and its role needed to be shifted from a single-user closed system to a next generation broadband communication device.

Here’s an excellent explanation why I’ve never been able to get into any (C-based) Open Source project...

Most open source work is done in C or C++, often using tools developed decades ago. It's too difficult for most people to download the source and build an open source project and those that could do it often don't feel they have the time or patience to do it. In the Squeak environment, there is no build process, and no long waits for recompilation, nor do you have difficulty jumping into a running system to find out what is happening. Programming happens at a much higher level of abstraction in Squeak Smalltalk. Due to difficulties with C and C++ most people see open source programming as a badge of hacker machismo. Old Smalltalkers, and the new breed of Squeakers can be forgiven for asking, "Why do you people keep torturing yourselves when there's a better way?"

Programming Language Benchmarks

2006-10-19T15:25:00.000-07:00

Here’s a great website for comparing programming language performance:

http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/

It’s truly enlightening. For example, you will find that Cincom VisualWorks is generally much, much faster than Ruby, but Ruby is much more memory-efficient.

No surprise but C++ is much faster and much more memory-efficient than Java.

C# is generally much faster than Python. Both languages are roughly similar in terms of memory consumption.

BASIC is hands down much faster and leaner than Python or Ruby.

You can spend hours comparing every language pairing. It’s fun!!!

A couple of caveats:

These are benchmark comparisons of specific language implementations. You can’t draw final conclusions about the languages themselves. However, they are good indicators of relative performance and should be used appropriately in decision-making.

Also, just because Language A is much faster than Language B does not mean that Language B is inadequate to the task of running your application. For example, C++ is clearly faster and leaner than Java, but Java runs well for many applications.

At least for me, this website has convinced me that VisualWorks is better than Ruby (I don’t really care that Ruby uses less memory). If Smalltalk is a little sluggish on my iMac, imagine how slow Ruby must be!!

An Ode to Smalltalk

2006-10-18T19:05:00.000-07:00

I found this post on the Internet. I thought it was very elegant and insightful, so I just had to show it to you guys. When you read it, keep in mind how you do things in C# or Java...

Smalltalk may very well be the one true language of civilization and progress (and yes, I need medical help).

It is not, however, the language of the future. :( It's more of a half-forgotten treasure, alight with the lost wisdom of the ancients (also see Symbolics, Lisp Machines, Eiffel, or Project Orion).

There are those that sit and lament the decline of a superior, more enlightened technology, lost to the barbarian hordes of the latter days (more like to the lack of management and advertising competence by its owners). (Don't even think about starting on the VHS vs. Betamax thing, tho. This is different).

There are those that ask, "Why is it that we do not yet hold in our hot little consumer hands, computer technology that was developed decades ago?"

That way lies certain doom! Instead, keep the light of knowledge alive, all ye true believers! Teach your children, educate your co-workers, and scribe the legends of a long-forgotten age so that one day the technology can be resurrected. Rejoice in seeing the wisdom of the old ways run in the veins of its offsprings (Objective-C, Java, Ruby, Python,...).

Its time shall come again!

[Note: This is not to imply that Smalltalk is dead. Saying that would certainly be news to the vibrant Smalltalk community, or to the various Smalltalk vendors such as Instantiations (VA Smalltalk) or Cincom (VisualWorks, ObjectStudio), and certainly to the many companies who use Smalltalk as their primary development environment that are doing quite well. However, Smalltalk's place in the industry today is a far cry from the Xerox PARC's Project Dynabook days and the dreams of its inventor.]

Ahem. I suppose that, among all of this ranting, I have not mentioned what Smalltalk is at its heart, nor explained its uniqueness.

Smalltalk, as others have mentioned, is an Object-Oriented Programming Language. That fact alone is not enough for me to waste electrons on -- there are several things one has to understand about Smalltalk.

Purity and Simplicity of Syntax
Each line of Smalltalk code is like a string of pearls -- object message, object message message. That's it, that's all there is to the language. When I code, I can almost picture the objects as small orbs on the mindscape, with messages as pulses of light traveling between the orbs in a vast, delicate network. I can't make any claims of productivity gains solely due to the Smalltalk syntax. I can say, however, that it's a simple, intuitive joy to code in this language.

Smalltalk is the IDE
This may seem strange to many C++ or Java coders who are used to the command-line compiler, and regard an IDE as little more than a souped-up text editor for the lazy. Those who swear by, and cannot live without, their MS Visual Studio or JBuilder environments can start to appreciate the importance of a good IDE to a language; however, the symbiosis between Smalltalk, the language, and its IDE goes even beyond that.

For one, a class browser in a typical Smalltalk IDE is a feat of informational organization. A single screen lists all the known objects, their methods (either instance or class methods by the flick of a switch), the variables used by that class, and finally the source code for a particular selected method. This setup allows the programmer to traverse the complex informational space of a large software project with amazing speed. For instance, if you click on a variable, all the methods that refer to that variable show up. More importantly, for a given method, you can see all its senders (other methods that call this one), as well as its implementers (for a commonly named method, think Java's toString(), a list of objects who implement that method). Thus, following the execution path/crumb trail of (somebody else's) code, across dozens of objects becomes almost effortless. Finally, there's the...

Live Brain Surgery Effect
Smalltalk's virtual machine is its greatest strength; the fact that it's a byte-code based interpreted language enables a programmer to delve right into the code of a program while it's running. Like a doctor performing a brain surgery without anaesthetic, with the patient awake and coherent and able to answer questions, a Smalltalk programmer can look and probe at a living, running program at any moment, and examine the contents of every variable in every method on the callstack. So say your program gets an error. Instead of deciphering the cryptic error messages, hunting for the mistake through the source code, recompiling and restarting the program... a window pops up. The window puts you directly into the call stack at the moment of the error, and you can examine the living guts (suspended in time) of the program -- the values of all the variables in the methods on the stack; you can even execute code on the objects in those methods. And when you track down the error and change code in a method, only the code in that method is recompiled, while the program is still running! At that point, you can close the error window, and continue with the (still uninterrupted) program, but now with the correct code.

Sweet F*cking Jesus!!! Isn’t that amazing??? Why the hell aren’t we all programming in Smalltalk...?

Studying Smalltalk

2006-10-16T15:59:00.000-07:00

This weekend, I began studying Smalltalk in earnest. Because I’m using Cincom’s VisualWorks (basically, this is the original Smalltalk from ParcPlace/Xerox PARC), I’m focusing on materials that deal directly with VisualWorks. So, for example, I’m starting with the following tutorials:

Cincom VisualWorks Tutorials

I’m also looking at the following books:

Smalltalk by Example: The Developer’s Guide (Featuring VisualWorks), by Alec Sharp, McGraw Hill, 1997.

Smalltalk: An Introduction to Application Development using VisualWorks, by Trevor Hopkins and Bernard Horan, Pearson Education, 1995.

I don’t know how good these books are. I’ll let you know in a couple of months. (BTW, they’re FREE from http://www.iam.unibe.ch/~ducasse/FreeBooks.html )

I’m having fun! I’m starting to get into it, actually moving away from television!

An Inspirational Story

2006-10-01T13:12:00.000-07:00

From another blog...

David Buck's Story

I started programming in 1978 on my own home-brewed computer. I evolved from machine language through to assembler, BASIC, and Pascal and C when I started my university degree at Carleton University. I remember the BYTE magazine article in 1981 and the idea of Smalltalk intrigued me.

In 1984, Carleton University received Smalltalk-80 on tape and they installed it on a Sun workstation. Unfortunately, the Sun only had 1 Meg of memory and it needed 2 Megs for Smalltalk, so for the first little while the system was horribly slow.

After the memory upgrade, I decided to do a Smalltalk project in Artificial Intelligence for the AI course taught by Wilf Lalonde. I managed to write a natural language parser that could read sentences and tell where the main verb was, what words were nouns, etc. It worked quite well.

After I finished my bachelor's degree, I obtained the source code for the Smalltalk virtual machine and ported it to the Amiga so I could use it at home. It was quite a blast having Smalltalk on my home computer.

I did a Master's thesis in Smalltalk (again under Wilf Lalonde) writing a 3D graphics renderer for B-Spline surfaces and a physically-based modeling package for it. This work is now evolving into a commercial product called ElastoLab. ElastoLab has a VisualWorks UI and a C++ physics engine.

I've been working full-time in Smalltalk since 1993 consulting to various companies and helping them on their projects. People tell me that Smalltalk is dying, but I'm seeing a resurgence. I'll stick it out. I can't give up on the world's most productive and expressive language. I love Smalltalk and I plan to continue using it.

Yes, I love Smalltalk too and I plan to wholly dedicate myself to this wonderful tool.

In Praise of Smalltalk

2006-10-01T13:05:00.000-07:00

From a blog...

C# or Java?
Over the last few years at work I've been coding in ASP/Javascript, then C#, and eventually Java. The previous year I was using Websphere/Java, but I switched departments recently and am now back to coding in Visual Studio/C#. I'm not overly partisan regarding either platform. I really don't feel a strong preference for one over the other.

Java has an immense library, and some good free IDEs, with my favorite (at home) IDE being Eclipse with the MyEclipseIDE add-on. (MyEclipse conveniently packages tons of great additional functionality for Eclipse. You could hunt down and install most of what they provide for free, but if nothing else they save you a lot of effort.)

But, I also enjoy working with C#. Visual Studio is very easy to develop in, and, like Java, there's an abundance of support and resources available for either one.

Since my focus is going to be graphics and game creation, I considered C++ too, but didn't want to worry about pointers, garbage collection, etc. etc.. That just doesn't sound appealing. They may not match C++ for speed, but I'm not looking to create the next Half-Life 2 or Doom 3, so I don't think that'll matter.

But, thinking about that reminded me of one of my key goals: not to necessarily pick the most 'efficient', the 'best' language, but to pick something that I would find fun to code in. I won't pretend that my decision is in any way based on careful research or a well-reasoned consideration of all various factors. It's going to be very subjective.

So, time to actually decide...

And the language of choice is....Smalltalk!
When we're going out to a restaurant, Russ is amused by my inability to decide exactly what I'll order until the waiter is hovering over us. Sometimes, after having been saying I'll order either A or B, B or A, I'll blurt out a third thing at the last minute. I just did it again: "Let's see, C# or Java? Which one......oh, how about Smalltalk!" Okay, it wasn't quite that impromptu, but it definitely was a come-from-behind decision to pick Smalltalk.

I know most people would find that decision downright ridiculous, but there's a (form of) reasoning behind my madness. I've always found Smalltalk interesting from the perspective of language development history, and had dabbled in various free versions of it over the last few years. (Squeak and Cincom VisualWorks in particular). While I wasn't initially blown away by it (for reasons I'll detail in some later post) I was intrigued.

As I mentioned in a previous post, having fun and enjoying the development process itself was of key importance. In thinking about this I remembered one of the best times I ever had: writing in Forth on my Commodore 64 back in the mid-eighties. What really appealed to me about it was the way code was naturally segregated into smaller parts, and you could incrementally build up your functionality and slowly let it 'grow' one piece at a time. (One could object that this is true of any language, but some facilitate this more than others...) Similarly, Smalltalk provides a very interactive experience that lets you fluidly move between design, coding, and testing. It's also rigorously object-oriented (some may say to the detriment of the language, but I love it), and I enjoy using a Class Hierarchy Browser for not only reference but as a place to code in. It makes looking up information feel like a smoothly integral part of the development process rather than an interruption to my coding while I hunt for what I need to know.

So, a major theme of this blog will be about my experiences and such as I go about developing a small game in Smalltalk. There are some wonderful sites with lots of information on Smalltalk, especially insofar as the language itself. BUT, there's not a whole lot of information out there (at least easily available) on developing games in Smalltalk, so I'm hoping to pass along whatever interesting/helpful info bits I find or discover as I do this. At the time of this post, my sidebar links are a miscellaneous mix of stuff, but over time I'll put a separate section of smalltalk-related links that I find especially helpful or interesting.

Next up: I'll review the various Smalltalk implementations, and make a choice for which one to concentrate on for my initial efforts.

This fellow shares my sentiments about Smalltalk. It's about having fun and exploring a delightfully different way to develop software.

Dying Brain

2006-09-28T12:50:00.000-07:00

My brain is dying. I know this because my short-term memory is quickly vanishing. I’ve complained about my poor memory for years now but in the past six months I’ve noticed that I’m much more forgetful. I can’t even remember the TV shows I watched the night before! (So what’s the point in watching them at all?!)

My friends and family have been warning me about this cerebral slide due to inactivity (retirement). I’m starting to feel a sense of desperation.

In fact, I can’t even remember the TV shows I watched the night before. My short-term memory is quickly vanishing.

So here’s my two-prong attack against this crisis. First, I’m going to investigate memory improvement self-help books and pick up one or two such books. And I’m going to read them!

Second, I’ve got to get my brain functioning again and the best way is to immerse it in problem-solving, such as logic and math puzzles. If anyone can recommend a good (introductory) source for such puzzles, I’d appreciate it.

But the best problem-solving strategy is to dive back into computer programming. For this, I’m going to focus on Smalltalk since I don’t particularly care about career enhancement (i.e., chasing after the latest mainstream trends). Smalltalk is attractive for its depth and maturity, as well as its enormous simplicity and elegance. My friend Norm has suggested Cincom Smalltalk so this is what I’ll start with. I’ll try to work in the Seaside application framework, as well.

To do all of this, of course, I’ll have to clear some time from my television schedule, a painful process to be sure but it has to be done. More on this in the coming weeks...

Why We Fight

2006-08-28T12:39:00.000-07:00

"Why We Fight," by director Eugene Jarecki, is a really good documentary on the American “military-industrial complex.” As with most things in life, the issue of unbridled American military power is mostly about money. But it’s also about the American attitude that they are the new “Roman Empire,” that it is their duty and obligation to police the world, to “spread democracy.” Some interesting points...

Dick Cheney was quoted as saying, around the time of the Iraq War, that “There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has Weapons of Mass Destruction.” There is no doubt. Note that he did not say, “we believe, based on our intell...” Was this simply Dick Cheney’s inappropriate wording?

Donald Rumsfeld was quoted as saying that “The United States knows that Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction. The UK knows that Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction. Any country on the face of the earth with an active intelligence program knows that Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction.” Really? They know? They know with absolute certainty? Was this Rumsfeld’s inappropriate wording? Or was he feeding us a line of bullshit?

Of course, today we know no such thing. WMDs were never found. Some people still stubbornly cling to the belief that Iraq has WMDs. They may, or they may not, we will never know. But to base foreign policy and military action on this belief is INSANE.

George W. Bush was quoted as saying recently that “We’ve had no evidence that Saddam was connected with 9/11.” Whoa! No evidence? Then what the hell are they doing in Iraq???

Richard Perle was quoted as saying that if someone is about to fire a missile at you, then it is common sense for you to take him out before he launches that missile. How can anybody argue with that?! I found myself thinking, “Richard, you are absolutely right. I agree with you 100 percent. Against an imminent attack, you should strike first. That’s common sense.”

However, Saddam did not pose an “imminent” threat at the time of the invasion. Perhaps the Bush administration’s definition of “imminent” is different from my definition of “imminent,” in the same way that Bill Clinton’s definition of “sex” is different from my definition of “sex.”

The problem with preemptive action when a threat is not “imminent” is that you may be wrong. You may attack without just cause, and this is intrinsically immoral.

Apparently, the United States are in the process of setting up 14 permanent military bases in Iraq. That may explain why the Bush administration has no “exit strategy.”

The military-industrial complex, and Donald Rumsfeld, like to flaunt their weapons technology, especially their “precision munitions.” Apparently, their “smart” bombs aren’t very smart. In the first 6 months of the Iraq War, the United States launched 50 “precision” strikes against the Iraqi leadership. Not a single one hit their intended target! Impressive record.

The Iraq War is part of the ongoing trend of “economic colonialism” of the United States. Senator John McCain said that the United States are a force for good in the world, but they must be careful not to cross the line and become a force for imperialism. I submit that it’s too late, they’ve already crossed that line.

President Dwight Eisenhower, in his farewell speech of 1961, warned the world about the dangers of unauthorized power in the hands of the “military-industrial complex,” a term he first coined. From those days, there has been an intimate relationship between the military, the defence industry, and Congress. (Defence spending means JOBS. It is the representative’s duty to bring home the bacon.)

Recently, there has been a fourth leg of this relationship. Add the “think tanks” who provide government with detailed analyses and projections WITHOUT any verification of the facts. These thinks tanks, through their powerful influence, dictate foreign policies with zero accountability to the voters. The political system in the United States is really screwed up now...

One final note: Despite what these “think tank” reports say, raw intelligence data show that Saddam Hussein tried to secure WMD materials in the 1980s but had not done so in the years from 1990 to 2002. The invasion of Iraq was based on lies perpetrated by these think tanks.

The military-industrial complex...it’s about MONEY and POWER. It’s about Capitalism and manipulating the world to the benefit and security of the United States. It’s all about U.S. self-interest.

AV Cables

2006-08-13T17:02:00.000-07:00

Of the four cables I purchased for my new plasma, three of them came from The Source of All Evil by Circuit City: a 12’ Toslink cable, a 12’ Component Video cable, and a 3’ Platinum-series Component Video cable (3’ are all I need to join the plasma to the HD PVR). These three cables come from The Source’s own house brand known as “Evolution.” And the Platinum series is Evolution’s “premium” label.

In my opinion, the Platinum series is as good as the established brands such as Monster, Kimber, or Cardas. Since Evolution and Platinum are not well-known, you can bet that their premium prices, which are still lower than Monster’s, go entirely into the quality of materials and construction, not into branding! In other words, Evolution is a great value!

The Source of All Evil has become my preferred source for cables. I’ve been pleased with all three that I purchased from them. I highly recommend The Source.

(The fourth cable, the HDMI cable, came from TigerDirect. For the price [$20], I think it’s a good cable. I wouldn’t pay more for a HDMI cable from The Source.)

Happy Anniversary, IBM PC!

2006-08-12T17:45:00.000-07:00

Today is the 25th anniversary of the introduction of the IBM PC.

I bought my first personal computer, an IBM PC, back in 1983 for $5,000 (Canadian). That’s 5,000 1983 dollars!!

It only had 128KB of RAM and a 5.25” floppy drive. It didn’t have a hard drive (I later added a 10MB hard drive). It had a 4.77MHz Intel 8088 processor. It had no graphics. It ran PC-DOS 1.0 (a rebranded MS-DOS).

Twenty three years later, I’ll be getting an Apple Mac Pro, with two 2.66GHz dual-core Xeon processors, 2GB of RAM, 500GB hard drive, SuperDrive DVD writer, NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT graphics, and a 23” Cinema HD Display for about 5,000 (2006) dollars! It includes the world’s very best desktop Operating System, OS X! And it’s a techno-wonder work of art!

(Here are other examples of techno-wonder works of art:

http://www.americansound.com/Oracle.htm

http://www.bwspeakers.com/

http://www.rsportscars.com/eng/cars/ferrari_f430.asp

)

It’s funny to celebrate the 25th anniversary by totally abandoning Microsoft. Just as the IBM PC was the state-of-the-art leader in 1981, so is the Apple Mac Pro in 2006.

We owe a debt of gratitude to the IBM PC. It revolutionized the world and utterly changed our lives forever. It is fitting that something equally majestic should follow in its footsteps on this, the 25th anniversary...

HDMI

2006-08-09T18:33:00.000-07:00

Important Consumer Advisory!!!

Last week, I reported that when I switch from a regular channel to a HD channel on my plasma TV using the HDMI connection to the Rogers HD PVR, all too often the PVR would get into an endless loop trying to synchronize (or perform handshaking with) the HD signal, resulting in a black screen (i.e., no picture).

This evening, I got fed up with that and I called Rogers Technical Support. They told me that presently HDMI is NOT supported by Rogers. Let me repeat: HDMI is NOT supported by Rogers.

I was informed that there were many complications and difficulties with HDMI at the present time and I was advised to use Component Video instead of HDMI.

Note that this is NOT mentioned in the Rogers HD PVR documentation (neither the Quick Start Guide nor the User Manual).

FYI, the Rogers HD PVR is the same as the Scientific Atlanta Explorer 8300HD set-top box.

Rogers told me that they are working on enabling HDMI at some point in the future, but they could not give me a time frame for completion.

This concludes your Important Consumer Advisory. Thank you for your attention.

TV Heaven at the Fortress

2006-08-07T13:29:00.000-07:00

My Master Bedroom setup (Toshiba LCD and Rogers Digital STB, with JVC VCR):

on the left side, you can see part of my Sony mini stereo system, as well as my futuristic bathroom scale.
on the right, you see part of my Gibbard cherrywood armoire (moucho expensive!).

My setup in the Den (Panasonic plasma and Rogers HD PVR, with Nakamichi 5.1 audio system):

note that I need 3 remotes - the Panasonic remote is used for video switching and operating the DVD player; the Rogers remote is for controlling the TV and PVR; and the Nakamichi remote is used to control the AV receiver.
you can see a bit of my Christmas decorations around the fireplace – it’s Christmas time all year round at the Fortress!
“The Merchant of Venus,” starring Al Pacino and Jeremy Irons, is playing on the television.

That concludes your tour of TV Heaven at the Fortress. Thanks for your patronage.

To Critics of my Television Lifestyle

2006-07-25T11:50:00.000-07:00

There are three things in this universe that are absolutely and unquestionably true:

1) Our sun will someday go nova and destroy all life on earth.

2) There will never be peace between the Arabs and Jews.

3) When they lower me into my grave, I will be clutching my plasma TV.

I’m going to have a television mausoleum. The walls will be lined with little LCD flat panels showing endless loops of my favourite TV shows. (Who’s going to pay for the electricity? Solar panels!)

I intend to be immortalized in the Smithsonian as “the Television Man,” whose life was indistinguishable from the all-pervasive medium. In addition to replicas of all my past TVs, including my plasma and LCD, there will be a wax figure of me, a la Madame Tussaud.

I want James Cameron to make a High Definition film of my life called, “A Man for All TV Seasons.”

A Terrific LCD TV

2006-07-22T13:20:00.000-07:00

I passed on both the Daytek 32" and Samsung 32" LCD TVs. I found a lovely product from Toshiba, the 32HL86. (It's very similar to the 32HL66.)

I love its industrial design – it looks, oh, so cool in my bedroom! It also has great build quality.

I especially like the picture quality. I think it's better than anything from Sharp or Sony.

I bought it from Futile Shop for CDN$1,500 - $50 special coupon = $1,450. If you also subtract $150 for the 6 months of free HD PVR rental from Rogers that comes with the purchase, the effective price is $1,300 + tax. I'm making off like a bandit!

Movie Review: An Inconvenient Truth

2006-06-09T09:59:00.000-07:00

It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.
Upton Sinclair

Government and industry are in denial about man’s role in global warming because they’re committed to preserving jobs and maintaining economic growth. This is one of the many important points made in the new documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, featuring Al Gore.

This film is based on a slide show that Al Gore has given over a thousand times during his career, a slide show that illustrates the alarming trend of global warming and man’s contribution to it over the past century. It explains in layman’s terms the scientific principles and studies that support his point of view. I found his explanations to be very clear and easy-to-understand but, more importantly, I found them to be very sound. This is the kind of scientific popularism that people like Carl Sagan and Brian Greene are famous for – in other words, it is very well done!

It bears repeating: this film presents one man’s vision, one man’s point of view. Any great documentary must have a particular point of view. As well, this point of view must be presented in a compelling, engaging and dramatic way. By this criterion, An Inconvenient Truth is a great documentary. (It easily compares to the other great documentary that I’ve seen in recent years called The Fog of War.) Cinematically, An Inconvenient Truth is this year’s What the Bleep Do We Know?! It is that good and that important a film. Like What the Bleep, it is profoundly thought-provoking.

Gore addresses the main counterargument to the global warming debate, that we are in the downward trough of a geologic cycle. His contention is that in the past hundred years, we’ve seen a rapid acceleration and amplification of global warming that is inconsistent with the history of these geologic cycles. In other words, the levels of carbon dioxide emissions we’ve seen recently far outstrip anything that we’ve seen in the past 650,000 years!! To me, this is conclusive evidence that human activity is responsible for the amplification.

The documentary also extrapolates with frightening gravitas the consequences of global warming if the current trend continues into the near future (~50 years). Whether or not you accept this extrapolation, you have to ask yourself, “Is it worth taking the risk of ignoring the possibility?”

(As I watched the film, I was constantly reminded of an early scene in the Superman movie where scientist Jor-El was trying to convince the council of elders that Krypton was headed towards annihilation. But the warnings fell on deaf ears – the people in power were in serious denial. And of course we know what happened thereafter...)

What can it hurt to accept responsibility for our acceleration and amplification of global warming?

Gore draws a very interesting parallel between the anti-global-warming campaign and the tobacco industry’s campaign to silent the anti-smoking lobby. Both are about money, about preserving corporate wealth. Both are about trying to hide or distort the truth, about tearing down scientific studies that support the detrimental effects of their products.

Lest you folks think that An Inconvenient Truth is a downbeat, pessimistic diatribe, this is not the case at all. It is a very hopeful and optimistic film. Al Gore says that we can dramatically reduce our contribution to global warming. His prescription is perfectly doable. It is only a matter of political will, which he believes is a renewable resource!

In fact, he draws another parallel with the ozone hole/CFC debate. There was a time when many people rejected the theory of the ozone hole. But eventually CFCs became banned, through political action, and today the ozone hole is starting to heal itself.

The film draws on Al Gore’s personal experiences which add a human dimension to the slide show, which otherwise might have become too dry. Some critics have said that the documentary is mere self-promotion for Gore’s ego or ambition. I did not find it so. It is quite simply an attempt to engage people in a warm, inviting way to think seriously about the most dire threat that civilization faces today.

Film critic Roger Ebert made an interesting observation about An Inconvenient Truth: In the 30+ years of his career as a movie reviewer, he has never said that a film was an absolute must-see for everyone...until now. I share that sentiment. Even if you don’t agree with Al Gore, even if you don’t like the man, you owe it to yourself to see this documentary. For your children’s sake. For the sake of our world. At the very least, it should get you to take this debate much more seriously, to shake you out of your complacency.

There is absolutely nothing in your life that is more important than this issue. Not your job. Not the economy. Not crime in the streets. Not cellphone use. Not even terrorism. What is at stake is nothing less than the welfare of man. And, after all, why are we here?

Love-struck

2006-06-04T15:37:00.000-07:00

Having dropped a few grand on a 42" plasma television recently (the Panasonic TH-42PX60U), I'm in no mood to spend another few grand on a LCD TV for my bedroom, so I'm looking for something really inexpensive. I'm seriously considering a 32" Daytek DT3220 from Costco (in Canada). However, the other day I saw this utterly drop-dead gorgeous LCD television (Samsung LN-S3252D) at a local electronics store that made me fall in love (I mean REALLY fall in love)...

This beauty has a glossy ivory finish that reminds one of a Grand Piano. In terms of industrial design, it is quite possibly the most beautiful television I have ever seen! Clean and elegant, it exudes sensuality.

But being the Cheap Bastard that I am, I'm sticking to my original plan of getting the Daytek. It's true what they say: Love hurts.

Affordable Mac Computing

2006-05-30T14:23:00.000-07:00

With Apple’s switch to Intel processors, Mac computing is now generally affordable for everyone. While it’s not the cheapest, it is certainly the classiest. And it’s competitive with higher-end Wintel products (from the likes of Lenovo, Sony, and Dell’s XPS line). To wit (Canadian dollars)...

Affordable Entry-Level Mac Box
Mac mini
1.5GHz Intel Core Solo
512MB memory
60GB hard drive 5400 rpm
Built-in wireless
$699

Affordable Entry-Level Mac Portable
MacBook
1.83GHz Intel Core Duo
13.3” LCD display
512MB memory
60GB hard drive 5400 rpm
$1,249

Affordable Mac Portable with Sex Appeal
MacBook Pro
2.0GHz Intel Core Duo
15.4” LCD display
512MB memory
80GB hard drive 5400 rpm
ATI Radeon X1600 w/128MB
$2,199

Affordable Mac Desktop
iMac
1.83GHz Intel Core Duo
17” LCD display
512MB memory
160GB hard drive
$1,499

They all run the superb Mac OS X operating system. They all include the fabulous iLife ‘06 application suite. Just the software alone gives the Apple Mac an edge over Windows!

And these machines will look terrific in any location – at home in your living room, at school or university, at work. Hey, style does matter!

And there is the promise of broader Windows compatibility in the coming years (see I, Cringely)...

There’s never been a better time to make the switch from Windows to Mac! Mac Rulez!!!