Steamd

A couple of days ago, I lambasted Microsoft on their new ads and said that I believed that you get what you pay for. To illustrate this, let’s look at a product that many have seen advertised: the Dyson vacuum. 

You might have seen the commercials that show one of the latest Dyson vacuums, the Dyson Ball. One might look at a vacumm like this and go, “Oh, that’s just a gimmick! All you’re paying for is a name!” But a closer study of what went into the creation of this vacuum reveals something else: innovation.

Readers Digest has an interesting story about James Dyson, the inventor of the Dyson vacuum. The article illustrates the sheer struggle Dyson went through just to market his invention. Chances are his invention might not ever have seen the light of day had he not persevered his quest to market the first bagless vacuum that never lost any suction.

A quick look at the vacuum market, it’s clear that Dyson vacuums are the most expensive ones on the market. Yes, you could buy a cheaper vacuum from other name brands like Dirt Devil, Hoover, Bissell, Eureka, and others. But for $100 t0 $150 you’re pretty much buying into the same vacuum technology that has been around since the first electric vacuum cleaner. Most of these use filters and/or bags that require replacement. Although there are cheaper vacuums that use cyclone vacuum technology similar to the Dyson, they simply don’t hold a candle to the Dyson on account of the patented technology and innovation that goes into a Dyson. On top of that, most vacuums from other manufacturers only come with a 1-year warranty. My wife and I have owned vacuums from Dirt Devil, Hoover, and others and none of them worked well or lasted longer than three years. 

The last vacuum my wife and I bought was the Dyson D17, a vacuum that cost $549 but we got on sale for $499. We could have easily gone with a cheaper, more affordable vacuum and spent less than a third of the cost of a Dyson, so why did a $500 vacuum attracted us so much?

First, the Dyson comes with a 5-year warranty. That told us that they clearly built these vacuums to last. If the vacuum lasts longer then it’ll easily make up for the added cost. 

Second, there are no added costs. No extra bags or filters to buy. The filter that comes with the unit is washable and should last for the life of the unit. Even if you had to replace the filter, it’s still under $20.

Lastly, the Dyson isn’t the same-ole, same-ole technology. The technology found on these vacuums cannot be found anywhere. The patented cyclone technology means that the vacuum will never lose suction. So far from my experience this is true. We’ve filled our vacuum up to the brim and it never once slowed down. And, let me tell you, when I say this thing sucks, it really sucks! Out of all the vacuums I’ve ever used, I’ve never seen one that can clean a floor the way this one can. I’m amazed every time I use it.

Now we have the Dyson Ball. Is it a gimmick? Just another thing to trick people into buying a name? No, it is not. It’s clear that Dyson is a company that is about delivering a good quality product built off of innovation. While others might be happy with spending $100 to $150 every three years or so, I’ll gladly pay $500 once every 5 to 8 years if it means getting a high quality product that does the job better than the competition. 

Yes, it’s true, you get what you pay for.

AppleInsider reports on a new add by Microsoft that tries to make Macs look unaffordable next to PCs. Does their argument hold water though? Well, sort of. As AppleInsider points out, the HP laptop the lady buys in the ad lags behind a MacBook Pro in terms of quality. It lacks 902.11n wireless capabilities, doesn’t have Gigabit Ethernet, no digital audio inputs and outputs, weighs 7.75 pounds (15″ MacBook Pro only weighs 5.5 pounds), doesn’t have any more resolution than the 15″ MacBook Pro and, based on reviews, has a horrible viewing angle.

The last time my wife and I went to Costco, I took a moment to look at the latest laptops Costco was selling. I looked a few HP’s as well as a few other laptops. I don’t know if I looked at the same laptop but it definitely was one in the same price bracket (sub-$1,000). My first impression? Even without Windows Vista on it, I probably wouldn’t buy one regardless of the low price. With all the plastic covering it, it felt flimsy and cheap.

You know the old adage, “You get what you pay for”? Believe it. While a MacBook Pro might cost you twice as much as a cheap sub-$1,000 notebook, it’ll last you twice as long if not longer. That’s a good investment in my opinion. 

More on this topic tomorrow.

Read more…

This years MacHeist bundle is better than ever. Is it better than last year’s? Well, it’s different; let’s put it that way. The good news is that they lowered the price: $39 is all it takes! WireTap Studio alone is worth the price of the bundle but other apps like World of Goo, Picturesque, and Acorn are all nice apps to have.

Read more…

John Gruber posted this on his blog and I just had to comment. It seems that Steve Ballmer, Microsoft’s ever so talented CEO, has stuck his foot in his mouth once again: 

“Apple gained about one point, but now I think the tide has really turned back the other direction,” Ballmer said, via webcast. “The economy is helpful. Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment — same piece of hardware — paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that’s a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be.”

Wait a minute.  Hold on.  So, what Steve is trying to say is that the typical Apple computer is $500 more than what everyone else is charging for a similar PC? Really? Last time I checked, a PC with the same processor, same amount of memory, same amount of hard drive space, similar video card, and such was within $100 of what Apple was charging. Simply put, Apple sells premium computers with premium parts; not cheap ass sub $1,000 crap computers. Granted, you can get a Mac Mini for under $700 and a MacBook for $999 but, even then, they’re still great computers and you get what you pay for and then some. 

Plus, what Ballmer fails to realize is that you’re not just paying for a name. People don’t buy an Apple computer and/or pay more just because it has a pretty logo on it. An Apple computer is more than just a computer and an operating system. It’s about providing a seamless experience between the hardware and software. Without the OS, an Apple computer isn’t an Apple computer anymore. Same applies to putting the Mac OS on hardware that is different than what Apple sells. It’s the combination of the two that distinguishes an Apple computer from a PC.

Figure it that your average computer buyer only upgrades a computer about once every three to five years or so. Regardless of the economy, people want their dollar to stretch. Would you pay $700 for a PC that will last you maybe three years? Or would you pay $1,200 for a computer that you know will last you five years or longer? People buy Apple computer simply because they are of higher quality and simply last longer.

Ballmer just doesn’t get it. If he actually used an Apple computer for three months without touching a PC then maybe he would understand. I think this quote says it all though:

“You’re talking to a guy, though, whose dad worked for Ford, and once Ford sold Land Rover and Jaguar, we’re selling the cars to get Fords, so you may have a weird outlier in me.”

Yeah, because Jaquar is so anti-American, right? Why would it matter who owns the Land Rover line if they’re still manufacturing a quality product? Has Ballmer even driven a Jaguar? Hell, I’m a big VW guy and it doesn’t bother me at all that Porsche has a controlling share of both VW and Audi. If a company is highly innovative and producing a quality product, who cares who owns them?

While price matters, quality also matters. If you’re not producing a quality product, it doesn’t matter how cheap it is people simply won’t buy it. I don’t know about Ballmer, but I’m more than willing to spend a little more if it means getting something I’ll be more satisfied with in the long run. A quality product is a quality product, even in a bad economy.

This is such bullshit. I mean, I don’t have any kids (yet!) but if I had a kid who was really big into web development, it would be the equivalent of telling him that he can’t use any other CMS but MODx. “Sorry, kid…no Drupal for you!” I may be a Mac pundit but I certainly would not deny my child of the things he/she might want. If my child really wanted a PC with Windows Vista on it, I’m not going to tell them,”Sorry, kid…Windows is not allowed in this household!”

If I was Bill Gates, I would allow my kids to use iPods and iPhones for the simple reason that it would allow me to get a better idea of the competition and actually see how they’re being used. The least Gates can do is explore some of these other products through the eyes of his kids. 

Granted, Gates isn’t exactly a big part of Microsoft anymore…but he can sure as hell give some constructive feedback to Ballmer. Not knowing the competition is part of the reason why Microsoft is having such a hard time right now.

Read more…

I use Basecamp quite a bit to manage the projects I do with Collabpad. So having a good, solid iPhone solution is starting to become a pretty important thing. A couple of weeks ago, I got a notification in my inbox about Outpost, the new iPhone application by Morfunk that allows you to manage Basecamp on the go. I was really excited. Finally I can monitor and process things on the go. It looked like a really promising app…till I read the reviews.

The problem with Outpost it seems is that it tries to sync everything locally to the phone. This sounds like a good thing but review after review after review indicates that it isn’t. Speed is the key to the success of a good Basecamp app. If I have to wait around for it to sync or if it crashes all the time because it can’t sync more than 30 projects at a time…that’s not a good thing. These problems made Output a major showstopper in my opinion.

Enter Encamp.

After reviewing other Basecamp solutions, I ended up giving Encamp a whirl. I was not disappointed. Upon opening the app and entering in my Basecamp domain and login, I noticed right off the bat that this was a pretty well designed app. The app felt like a typical iPhone application…which is a good thing. Rather than reinventing the wheel, Alexander stuck with the typical interface elements and workflow of most iPhone applications. The end result is an app that doesn’t take you any time to get used to. It just “feels” like a good iPhone app.

The other thing I noticed is that it’s fast. The only limitation is the speed of the network you’re on and whether or not if the Basecamp site is accessible. Encamp accesses information on Basecamp pretty darn quickly. It’s fast on wi-fi networks but it’s still pretty darn quick even when accessing it via 3G.

Is it perfect? No, but a version 1.x app rarely ever is. There are subtle things here and there that I wish were a bit different. For instance, it would be cool to have some way to switch between projects quickly without having to constantly tap back to the top project level. But that’s a very minor gripe that doesn’t at all have any impact on this review. 

About the only thing on my wishlist is the ability to view attachments on messages, to-do’s, and the like. I have a lot of clients that attach pics, Word documents, PDF’s, and such and I have to be able to review them prior to processing to-do’s and posting followup messages. If I were able to review things on the go then it would save me a ton of time. 

In conclusion, if you’re looking for a really good, solid Basecamp solution Encamp is the app to get! I’m looking forward to seeing what Alexander has in store for this app. 

This is why I don’t recommend Windows for people who don’t know what the hell they are doing. Have them stick with a Mac. And if they can’t afford that, have them stick with Ubuntu. Far safer and they don’t even have to remember to update their antivirus software every year.  ;)

Read more…

Yesterdays blog post regarding the whole Windows 7 will crush Linux thing turned out to be something that got a bit of a response from Ron Barrett. I do appreciate the link…even if I’m an angry Mac person. I mean, after all, the site is called Steamd for a reason. Ron does make a couple of very valid points in his response though.

First, he admits that he does have a bit of a bias towards Microsoft products. After all, that’s what he makes his money on. However, he is quick to point out that that does not mean that he favors Microsoft as a company. 

I give Redmond’s software the thumbs-up when I think it deserves it.

Honestly, I’m the same way about Apple. Just because I use a Mac doesn’t mean that I’m automatically part of the Apple parthenon of holy Mac users. Sorry, no angry cult in my corner. I use products that I feel are well designed and meet my needs. Apple’s product just happen to fit my needs much better than others.

Secondly, Ron points out that he does have a good amount of experience with Linux desktops: Ubuntu 8.04, Fedora 8, and RHEL 5 specifically. That’s good to hear since it wouldn’t make much sense to argue about something one has no experience with.

To my way of thinking, this makes me operating-system agnostic, so when I say, “Wow” to Windows 7, it’s a response that comes from direct experience.

The problem is that your experience is from a much different perspective than your average user. My experience comes from using each of these operating systems in many different ways. I’ve used every version of Windows since Windows 95 came out. I’ve experience Linux early on and have kept an eye on it till about 4 years ago when I started actually using it for web production purposes. Since then I’ve used various versions of Ubuntu and SUSE for both work and home. I’ve administrated Windows server and desktop environments and spent the better part of five years doing that. I supported a total of about 80 employees in a virtually 100% Windows environment. The only computer that wasn’t Windows was one server running a desktop version of OpenSUSE for the company intranet.

In the end though, I switched to Macs. Why? Because I felt Microsoft has lost their way and found a combination of Linux and Macs to be a far better solution.

What I learned from my days of IT administration is that the point of view of your average user is much different than how folks like Ron and I view technology. Most users are not nearly as educated or as techie as us. As such, many users view a computer as an obstacle to getting what they want done. They don’t care about which OS is better than the other. They just want something that allows them to accomplish their tasks in the easiest way possible. 

What’s interesting is that Ron links over to a subsection of an article entitled 12 Reasons Why Windows is Better Than Linux For Non-Techies. Here’s the two items of that subsection:
 

“4) Configuring desktops and settings. Desktop,network,control panel and screen saver all the setting is little different as compare to windows so in the first look most of the non-techies get confused on how to configure their desktop.

“5) Installing Software. This is the most confusing and difficult thing for non-techie because software installation is totally different in linux as compare to windows.We have to install from sources rather than just running a setup files.”

I can argue both of these points quite easily. First though…

About a month ago, one of my wife’s best friends calls me and tells me that her parents computer is having problems. Her mom brings the computer by for me to look at. The moment I boot it up, I see the problem. It had Windows 98 on it and needed to be reinstalled. No way was I going to let her mom walk out with an OS that is no longer supported.

The only option she had was to buy another computer, which she honestly didn’t have a whole lot of money to do that with. I recommended that she get a Mac but she honestly couldn’t afford it and didn’t want to spend a whole lot of money on another computer. As it turns out though I did have a spare desktop computer I could sell her. Problem was that it was an older computer and didn’t have a Windows XP license associated with it. So it was either she pay an extra $150 for a Windows XP license or allow me to put Ubuntu on it. We chose the later option.

After setting the computer up, I spent the better part of an hour walking both her and her husband on getting around in Ubuntu. Keep in mind that these are folks that don’t know much about computers. They don’t know anything about keeping antivirus software up to date let alone what viruses actually are and how one can get them. All they do is surf the net, check their email, and do a little word processing now and then. Having a Windows computer would only cause problems for them because, unlike the techie that knows well enough not to do certain things, these are users who don’t know any better. As such, an OS like Ubuntu is a much safer bet. It’s clean, easy to operate, lets them do the stuff they want to do, and is safe and secure without them having to know a whole lot. 

The good news is that she hasn’t called me at all since I set the computer up for her. It’s a testament that Linux can indeed be a highly viable solution for those whose needs are simple and don’t require specific software. 

Now, with that in mind, let’s talk a bit about those two arguments…

When it comes to configuring desktops and settings, every operating system is indeed a little different. But that doesn’t matter much if the interface is well designed and obvious. I showed the folks above how to do things like change their background, screensaver, and such and they weren’t confused at all. In fact, they both said it looked very simple. And this is coming from two people who don’t know Jack about the difference between Windows and Linux.

As far as software installation goes, yes, it’s different between Windows and Linux. Two different approaches to the same problem. I could argue that the need to run setup files is more confusing. After all, it’s much simpler in Ubuntu to update software than it is in Windows. A novice user on Windows would have to understand the concepts of how to download a setup file, run it, install the software, and then delete the setup file. On Ubuntu, all they have to know is how to work one application that allows them to install and/or update the software on their computer. Again, I showed this very thing to the folks I talked about above. It’s all about how you approach it.

The argument that somehow Linux is harder to use, more confusing, and more difficult to use is moot at best. It just depends on what it is that you’re using the computer for. I’ve proven this several times, not just with the folks above. Not everyone is a good fit for Linux but for those who are it’s a great solution.

As Ron points out at the end of his post “diversity is what makes this industry awesome”. But to say that Windows 7 will put the Linux desktop to rest is a bold statement. I believe there’s room for both.

One thing I’ve learned though is that design matters. The true test is how the design of both operating systems will change in the future. I honestly believe that Microsoft is in a downward slope with the design of their OS. With Ubuntu and other Linux distros, I’m seeing steady improvements to both the Gnome and KDE interfaces. Linux likely won’t take over the world and definitely won’t put a serious dent in Microsoft’s desktop market share, it’ll still prove to be a viable alternative for some individuals and businesses. Guess we’ll see how it pans out.

Recently, I got an email in my inbox about a new The Bird and the Bee album coming out. Since I’m a fan of highly inventive electronic music, I like these guys. I bought their last album and will likely buy the new one if it’s good.  

What’s interesting is how I found out about these guys. The music was used for a music video created by director Dennis Liu. What’s awe inspiring is the use of the Mac desktop in this video. It’s kind of difficult to describe exactly what this video is so…just watch it and you’ll see how cool it is:

I’ve talked about my IT background several times on my blog as well as the operating systems I’ve had the most experience with. I’ve used virtually every version of Windows since Windows 95 debuted and have administrated both desktops and servers for every version since Windows 2000. I’ve been using OpenSUSE Linux since SUSE 9.0 and have had experience using the last two releases of Ubuntu. I’m currently an avid Mac user and have used every Mac OS since 10.4 Tiger. Having used all of these operating systems as well as being an IT administrator for the better part of 5 years has given me a great insight into how well these operating systems hold up to various tasks and how easy they are to administrate and maintain. While everyone is entitled to their opinion, I’m of the firm belief that an opinion does not count unless it is a well educated one. 

Today, I was going through my RSS feeds in Google Reader and stumbled on a post by Ron Barrett on NetworkWorld.com entitled Why Windows 7 will crush Linux. My first though was, “Really? Windows 7 will crush Linux?”. Let’s see if Mr. Barrett’s arguments hold water.

While it is true that Linux hasn’t been able to crack the desktop in homes and businesses, it has made quite an entrenchment in the server market. Linux can be a viable alternative desktop solution to some though. Linux desktops still have a market share just under 3%, which isn’t anything to frown at. That’s not bad for an open-source solution that’s up against the big dogs. 

Barrett mentions that Windows lost a little over 3% market share last year. What Barrett doesn’t tell you is that Windows lost market share, not to Linux, but to the Mac. It wasn’t long ago that Windows market share was still in the lower to mid 90’s. In just two years, Macs have went from just a 6 to 7 % market share to over 10%. That’s amazing growth, wouldn’t you say? Mr. Barrett may not be panicking…but I can bet you Microsoft is. 

Many people might be surprised to learn that I come from a background of Windows, Linux, UNIX and even MAC. In fact, my first IT experience was in a Novell/SCO UNIX environment. Now there are some fundamental issues to why Windows 7 will trump Linux distros like Ubuntu, Fedora and Debian.

And even MAC? Kind of makes me think you sort of played around with Macs but didn’t really use them all that much. And have you used the latest versions of Ubuntu, Fedora, and Debian for any good length of time? How do you know for sure that Windows 7 is so much better than the latest Linux distros?

It’s all about bang for the buck, Ron. My guess is that Windows 7 will cost about the same as Vista…which is too much. Last I checked, a copy of Windows Vista Ultimate goes for about $339. Compared to $129 for OS X and free for Linux, I just don’t see how the cost of Windows Vista and/or Windows 7 holds up so well. I mean, what the hell does Windows Vista Ultimate really offer that is so great compared to the alternatives?

THEREFORE, to get those out of the way let’s just spell them out. Windows 7 installs easier, has simpler configuration of user settings, greater availability of software, support (you could argue that all support is awful, which is probably true) Windows support is easier to get when you need help. Gaming, MP3’s,… I could go on and on.

Easier to install? Have you installed Ubuntu lately? Honestly, it doesn’t get any easier than that. Plus, compared to the latest Windows 7 beta, Ubuntu installs way faster. As for the other stuff, it’s all in the eye of the beholder. Ubuntu is pretty easy to configure and really isn’t all that much different than Windows as far as configuration is concerned.  It’s just a bit different is all. And the wealth of software and support for Linux has never been greater than now. There are tons of alternatives to the most popular Windows-based applications, most of which are free. I could go on and on too. Now, as for some of the other things you mention in your article…

To real Linux die hards… terminals rule. Microsoft has realized that the serious Administrator understands the usefulness of using command line input to accomplish tasks. Windows Powershell has introduced cmdlets to improve administration of Windows. Powershell also makes it easier to string together multiple administrative without the need to jump from management GUI to management GUI.

While this sounds like a cool new feature for Windows administration, you still haven’t explain how this will entice Linux users to drop Linux and move to the dark side.

So Powershell presents an interesting argument for Windows adoption by the Linux user. You can go command line crazy if you like and still play all your favorite PC games. Powershell remoting will allow Administrators to create one to one or one to many sessions for running scripts on other machines.

Ah, yes..PC games!  Because nothing can entice a Linux admin like putting a copy of World of Warcraft on a PC along with the ability to go powershelling. That’s like crack to a Linux admin.

As for open source on Windows, yes, there is no shortage of open source software for Windows. However, most of the project you mentioned (Firefox, Open Office, MYSQL, GIMP) have been available for multiple platforms for years. Besides, open source isn’t a feature of Windows 7 and not the sort of thing that will entice users to switch to Windows 7.

Also, features alone don’t make one operating system better than the other. It’s great that Windows 7 has new features that don’t impede performance, but how many of these features really matter to real-world users? Some of them are highly relevant so long as you’re in a Windows world. Other though are just Greek to the average Joe. DirectAcess, Bitlocker to Go, Applocker and the new easier to use UAC? Although I know what each of these features are, nobody else will know. Try explaining this stuff to your non-IT, non-geek boss.

It looks like all the arguments (except being mad at Bill for being Rich) have been answered. Linux users have no reason to hold back anymore. Windows 7 is well placed to crush and put an end to the penguin.

Umm…what arguments? Windows 7 is in no more of a position to crush Linux anymore than Vista is. As far as I’m concerned, unless Microsoft re-invents Windows, gets rid of all the legacy crap, rein-visions it, and rebuilds it from the ground up then the game will be over. In the meantime, Linux will always be around and will continue to be a viable alternative to Windows for those who seek it. 

While you may think Windows 7 will crush Linux, I think Mac OS X will end up sending a crushing blow to Microsoft’s market share. As the iPhone has proven, design matters Ron. Compared to OS X, Windows 7 is poised to continue on a path of poorly designed Windows operating systems. Microsoft has lost it’s way. The only way for them to continue dominating the market place is for them to build a better operating system. Till then, make mine Apple!  :)