Steamd

Back in 2001, like so many other folks in the tech industry, I got laid off and had a hard time finding another job. I ended up working as a computer technician at the tech desk of a local Best Buy. So when I read about the shenanigans Best Buy puts customers through with computer optimizations at The Consumerist^[1] I was not at all surprised by what I read.

Back when I worked at Best Buy, we were encouraged to offer customers computer optimizations. By encouraged I mean we were forced shove computer optimizations down the throats of all customers buying computers. We were told to tell the customer just about anything to get them to buy them: “Your computer will get a virus if you don’t!” or “Your computer won’t run as fast without the optimization!” or even better “The latest updates will take you hours to download and install! We can do it in just minutes!” All of these are a bit of a stretch. Most customers would respond with, “So, you’re telling me that this brand new computer I’m buying isn’t nearly as fast as it should be and won’t work right out of the box?” Yes, Mr. Customer, that’s exactly what Best Buy is trying to tell you.

For a brief time, that was actually true…but that was when a nasty virus was running rampant and caused some Windows XP to get it without doing anything other than get online. For a while we were able to apply the security patches and run a computer optimization on just about every computer in the store prior to purchase and then charge the customer for the optimization. Just like Betty in The Consumerist story, we were selling computers with the optimization already done. Customers didn’t have a choice. The reality was that the customer was getting a pretty good deal. The Windows XP service pack that fixed the issue was over 200 megabytes which, for most people, would take about an hour or more to download. Since we already downloaded it, all we had to do was install it and optimize the computer a bit. Instant $30 for just a bit of work. Problem is that this only lasted for a few weeks. We couldn’t use that as an excuse once most computers were being shipped with the appropriate security patches already pre-installed.

So, if security issues and large patches aren’t an issue then why would a computer optimization be a good deal? And why should any customer be forced to pay for one if they didn’t ask for it? My take is that value is in the eye of the beholder. If your going to pay $40 for something it should have some kind of value attached to it.

When I was doing computer optimizations, I would make sure that the customer got their money’s worth. I built an automated routine that would install not only the latest patches onto the computer but also a few other bits that would help keep the computer clean. I would also optimize the computer so that certain pre-installed programs don’t run automatically. This varied from model to model. Some models had a lot of crap starting up when you fired up the computer which really slowed things down. Some didn’t have much at all. So if it’s just patches then you’re not really getting your money’s worth. It’s stuff that you can do yourself by just getting online and autoupdating the computer. There were other little optimizations here and there that we did but nothing earth shattering that would boost a computer’s performance by 200%. That would be ridiculous. That alone is what makes computer optimizations a complete rip-off.

As for antivirus software installs, I honestly believe we ripped off customers. I mean, why would you pay an extra $30 just to have someone install software that you can install yourself? I understand that there are people who don’t know much about computers and would rather pay someone to do all that stuff for them. If you’re one of those people then, to be honest, you’re a sucker. Seriously, instead of paying someone, learn to do this stuff yourself. It’s not that hard. Otherwise, you’ll continue throwing money away for no other reason other than you’re lazy.

Is up-to-date antivirus software a good thing to consider when you get a new computer? Absolutely. In fact, I believe every computer salesman should let customers know about their options and educate customers when they buy a new computer. If you’re buying a Mac then antivirus software is less of a problem. But on a new Windows machine? Yes, you might want to consider some antivirus software. While the software pre-installed on the computer might work, usually it’s on a trial basis of about three months or so. Rather than forget to update your software three months later, you might want to consider just buying a good antivirus program that gives you a full year of updates. Otherwise, you put yourself at risk of getting virus or malware infections, which is never fun to contend with.

Bottom line is that laziness is why Best Buy is able to extort so many people into getting optimizations. The average computer buyer really doesn’t know much about computers, so when a Best Buy staff member tells them all the nasty things that can happen if they don’t get the optimization then they feel stupid and end up giving in simply because they don’t know enough to say no!

So, what can you do to protect yourself? Simple. Learn something about the computer you’re using and/or buying! Learn to do stuff yourself rather than relying on other people to do it for you! I don’t care how you do it: read a book, go to a class, get someone to teach you. Whatever method you need to learn how to use and maintain a computer, do it!

UPDATE:

Here a video from Consumer Reports about Best Buy computer optimizations:

1. Best Buy Optimization Is A Big Stupid Annoying Waste Of Money [↩]

Just read an interesting post on TheAppleBlog^[1] about two different experiences when it comes to getting support for either a Dell PC or Apple computer. The writer illustrates two scenarios of how a typical support call works, both entailing a failed hard drive. The end result? According to the writer, Apple provides much better support than Dell.

I’ve worked within the IT industry for quite a few years. I worked as a computer technician at Best Buy for about a year and as an IT supervisor at an architectural firm for the better part of four years. I’ve dealt with a lot of issues with a lot of different computers. In my experience, the stories told by the writer at TheAppleBlog mirror my own, not just on a consumer level but even on an enterprise level.

One particular incident involved getting support for a Dell laptop that a co-worker owned. It was exhibiting a lot of issues: it ran extremely slow, the video was getting scrambled, and it sometimes wouldn’t boot. My diagnosis was that the video card on the motherboard was fried and had to be replaced. I told my co-worker to call Dell and tell them everything we did to diagnose the problem.

What proceeded was nothing short of typical for many PC companies: the blame game! Dell told him it was an operating system problem and that he had to call Microsoft. Microsoft told him it was an issue with the video card and that he had to call Nvidia. I then had to call Dell and explain to them in great detail that the issue is a hardware problem and that the motherboard needed to be replaced. It took over three phone calls and many wasted hours just to get Dell to acknowledge that there was a problem with their hardware.

Granted, no company is perfect nor does every PC company provide bad support. I’ve definitely had plenty of times when support from a computer company other than Apple was really good. However, I can say with most certainty that on average, Apple provides better support for their products. I have yet to have what I would call a really bad support experience that would make me think twice about buying another Apple product. Maybe that explains why Apple is ranked so high when it comes to customer satisfaction^[2].

It amazes me how little some people think about the support for a product. I have wasted a ton of time on support calls in my years as an IT supervisor. In fact, on many occasions the time and energy spent on support calls made a huge difference in the decision making of whether to buy from this company or that company. Even as a consumer, I find myself thinking about that because, when it comes right down to it, I want the knowledge of knowing that the company I buy stuff from is going to back their products. If they don’t then I’m wasting my time buying their products. If they do then I can save myself a ton of time, frustration, and even money by going with a product that is of great quality and well supported. Think about that the next time you go to buy a computer.

1. A Tale of Two Hard Drives: Apple’s Secret Weapon? [↩]
2. Apple leads, Dell lags in customer satisfaction [↩]

Macworld just published a post on their site about Microsoft opening retail stores near Apple stores. My initial thought was, “Huh?” I mean, I’m a little flummoxed by this. Who’s bright idea was this? I mean, there’s the old adage that if you can’t beat them, join them but this is ridiculous.

There are a couple of reason why I think Microsoft is going to fail in this venture.

First of all, how does Microsoft expect to compete with Apple’s stores? I mean, it’s not like they’re gonna be selling HP, Dell, Compaq, Sony, or any other brand of computer in their stores. I suppose its safe to assume that Microsoft will be focusing on their software as well as other items like the Xbox, Zune, and other stuff like that.

Unlike Apple, Microsoft has to rely on third-party vendors to provide a complete computing solution. So how do they plan on connecting customers to a complete solution if they’re not even selling computers? I fail to see the logic in how they think this is going to help Windows in any meaningful way.

Most people don’t buy Windows off the shelf. If it’s not pre-installed on the computer they are buying then they are not likely to fork over $100+ or more for a Windows upgrade. I guess Microsoft is hoping that the existence of exclusive Microsoft stores will attract a greater number of people who might be willing to pay for a Windows upgrade. Personally, I think Microsoft is going to have quite an uphill climb in getting a greater number of people to purchase Windows upgrades.

Lastly, opening stores in close proximity to an Apple store is futile. Opening one near an Apple store is bad enough, but opening a Microsoft store right next door to an Apple store?  That’s suicide!  The reason is that by allowing customers to draw a direct A-B comparison with your competitor you run the risk of further alienating yourself with the competition.

I’m willing to bet that you’ll have a lot of customers who will first enter the Microsoft store only to end up in the Apple store just so they can see what all the fuss is about with Apple. Some customers will leave and go back to the Microsoft store unconvinced that an Apple computer is right for them.  But a good number of them will likely consider switching after being exposed to both due to the short proximity of experience.

So, is the news of Microsoft stores opening up good for Microsoft or Apple?  Likely, it’ll be good for both. But I honestly think that it’s much better for Apple. Competition is a good thing and it’ll be interesting to see just how Microsoft plans to compete with Apple in their own territory. I say to Microsoft: “Bring it on!”

I couldn’t help but laugh my ass off when Steve Ballmer showed up as the third worst person in the world on Countdown with Keith Olbermann. Keith had this to say about a recent quip from Ballmer:

“Never mind a computer that figures out what I meant to do. How about one that does what I asked it to do?”

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.

Have to admit, I like the idea of using more open source software solutions to power various government agencies and departments. I mean, what’s wrong with using Ubuntu, OpenOffice, Firefox, and other open source solutions on government computers? They’re more stable, more secure, and get the job done with little or no fuss. I would think that most government workers don’t really need much beyond that. They don’t really need everything that Macs and Windows-based PC’s provide. They just need something that isn’t going to crap out on them and isn’t slow as molasses.

Read more…

John Gruber at Daring Fireball linked this one. This is hilarious! So true, so true!

CAUTION: Not work safe!

Read more…

I love drinking Shiner Bock but, trust me, I doubt you’ll find me pouring any of it out just so I can run my car on it. Still, just the idea of being able to make biofuel out of beer is kinda cool. I mean, if a gallon of biofuel made from beer was actually cheaper than the real thing you can definitely count me in. Imagine driving down the road on a full tank of beer biofuel. That’ll make the guys at Budweiser squeal for sure.  ;)

Read more…

My wife sent this link to me. Have to admit, this is a very clever resume:

When are these guys ever going to learn. According to Reuters, the U.S. Supreme Court let stand on Wednesday a ruling that a federal law designed to keep Internet pornography away from children violated constitutional free-speech rights. In a nutshell, it means that people running websites with pornography are not required to put systems in place that use credit cards and access codes in an effort tohinder minors from viewing pornographic material. 

Granted, I’m all for protecting our first amendment rights so I definitely do not want our Supreme Court to allow any law that impedes on those rights. However, I do believe that a simple use of technology can help…and it won’t even impede on anyone’s rights.

One simple solution is the .xxx domain suffix, an idea that keeps getting rejected over and over again. The reasoning for not wanting to implement this has never made any sense to me. I still haven’t heard any legitimate reason as to why it shouldn’t be implemented. The only thing I’ve heard is that implementing a .xxx domain suffix only legitimizes porn online.

Look, people are going to view porn online whether we like it or not. The real argument has nothing to do with whether you agree with the existence of pornography or not. Rather, the main thing we should be worried about is how easy it is for kids to gain access to pornography. What can parents do to ensure that their kids can get online and browse safely without worrying whether little Johnny accidently accesses a site with some hardcore porn? The fact that such material exists online isn’t the problem. The problem is that there isn’t any consistency in being able to filter the content.

Consider the top suffixes in use on the internet today: .com, .net, and .org. Granted, there are a bunch more but these are the three most popular. Do you know what they stand for and what their original purpose was? 

.com - Commercial site
.net – Internet administrative site and/or network
.org – Organization site

Think about the sites you see everyday that use the .com suffix. How many of them are really commercial websites? What about all the .net sites that aren’t really networks? The problem is that none of this stuff is really being used as it was intended. The contextual nature of domain names seems to have been lost in the shuffle.

A .xxx suffix would basically be used for sites that are pornographic in nature. Some sites like playboy.com would of course be able to maintain their existing .com address. After all, Playboy is such a big part of pop culture that to force them to use a .xxx suffix is ridiculous. In most cases though, it’ll be pretty clear whether a site should be under a .xxx or not.

Keep in mind that we’re not talking about regulation here but rather some simple oversight. I would hope that most online porn businesses would want to convert over to a .xxx for the simple fact that it’ll help their business in the long run. 

With .xxx suffix domains in place, parents can then filter virtually all domains with porn by simply blocking any sites with a .xxx suffix which is extremely easy to do. Any sites that are still under .com’s will be easy to filter simply because most of them will be available in a public list which can then be added to a simple filter.

In the end, parents win and online porn businesses can continue to do their thing without the government impeding on their rights. It’s a win-win situation so long as everyone can see the potential and stick to using the suffixes as intended. You’d think someone would have explained this to our politicians so they could figure this out by now. Nope. Guess we’ll have to wait another 5 years before they get their act together.