So, I fired up the old PC this morning, and attempted to open Google Chrome. Oh, Snap. Adobe Flash crashed. And, Lo and Behold, Vista began another forced Microsoft update. Ok, then. Another Microsoft update that royally screws up other companies software. And it just happens to be Google. The Flash plug-in still works perfectly with Firefox, and I'll bet it works great with IE, too. (Although, I never use IE, so I wouldn't know.) I immediately reinstalled Chrome, but I'll bet some people are still confused about what to do, or just too lazy/busy to do a reinstall right now. I wonder how much browsing traffic MS just drove away from Google? Chrome is supposed to have 1%+ of the total browsing market. In percentage terms, not a lot. In raw volume terms, that is millions or billions of pages per hour.
This of course leads to the next question: When are people going to get totally fed up with MS? I realize that it is only a small percentage of users that understand what is going on. Many people don't know the difference between an OS and a browser. So, they just toil on with Microsoft's crap. I'm using Vista now, because I am being forced to. I use software for work that is not available for Linux or anything but XP or Vista.
And, therein lies the problem. Microsoft has the best API's and "hooks" in the OS for programmers. Sorry open sourcers, but it is true. I use Open Office, and like it, but it looks like it is 10 years old compared to Office 2007. Does that make a difference to me? No. Does that make a difference to a typical user? Sad to say, yes. What is the one major difference between XP and Vista for 90% of users? Aero Glass. And most users (not POWER users) like Vista better then XP. Why? Aero Glass. Makes no difference to productivity, in fact it hurts productivity as the computer slows for programs that don't support it.
Windows sucks. Can we fix the problem people.
Showing posts with label Microsoft. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Microsoft. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Monday, December 8, 2008
Sansa! The answer to iTunes.
iTunes sucks. Flat out crappy software. iPods, on the other hand, are great pieces of hardware. But iTunes id so bad, that there is an entire community of people desperate for options. (see anythingbutipod.com)
Sandisk may be here to save the day. The Sansas are great devices with better, if not perfect, software. I have both an e280 - which is being phased out - and a new Fuze.
The good:
Sansas can be loaded with tracks through Windows Explorer. I do most of my music work on a new Toshiba laptop, packing a core2duo proc. iTunes runs about as quickly as Photoshop CS3 would on a 486dx. Then, it hacks my albums up into a total mess on any iPod I've ever had. (For the record: I have had, at one point or another, an iTouch, a Nano, and 2 iPods) I like electronic music. Which means that I have many DJ albums, in which each track has a different artist, but it is meant to be a continuous mix by said DJ. iTunes is not smart enough to figure that out. My mixes all end up labeled as 12 or 13 different albums. There goes listening to a full album as it was meant to be listened to. Sansas work (almost) perfectly in this respect.
Sansas work with WMA tracks. Ever rip a CD into Windows, and try to put it on an iPod? iTunes has to reconvert every track into AAC, since iPods don't play nice with WMA. And don't forget that every track you rip now has to live on your HD twice, unless you want to live with the new organization system imposed by iTunes, and you want to do everything with that music in iTunes.
Sansas easily match the iPod in terms of sound quality. Yup, you read right. Most players have crappy sound compared to an iPod. The sansa players are equivalent, and the earbuds that Sandisk ships with them are BETTER than the factory iPod buds. I have been offered $50 aftermarket Sony earbuds as a trade for my Sansa buds, and turned the trade down. Well done on the buds, Sandisk.
The Bad:
I do have to knock Sandisk for the video features on these players. They will not play MP4 video out of the box. That sucks. (Yeah, I know that was supposed to be added to the Fuze, but I've tried to convert videos using many different settings, and the only successful conversions I've done have been in Sansa Media Converter.) Adding generic MP4 support would be a huge bonus.
All said it is a great option for Windows users who are tired of the crap they have to deal with on the iPod.
Sandisk may be here to save the day. The Sansas are great devices with better, if not perfect, software. I have both an e280 - which is being phased out - and a new Fuze.
The good:
Sansas can be loaded with tracks through Windows Explorer. I do most of my music work on a new Toshiba laptop, packing a core2duo proc. iTunes runs about as quickly as Photoshop CS3 would on a 486dx. Then, it hacks my albums up into a total mess on any iPod I've ever had. (For the record: I have had, at one point or another, an iTouch, a Nano, and 2 iPods) I like electronic music. Which means that I have many DJ albums, in which each track has a different artist, but it is meant to be a continuous mix by said DJ. iTunes is not smart enough to figure that out. My mixes all end up labeled as 12 or 13 different albums. There goes listening to a full album as it was meant to be listened to. Sansas work (almost) perfectly in this respect.
Sansas work with WMA tracks. Ever rip a CD into Windows, and try to put it on an iPod? iTunes has to reconvert every track into AAC, since iPods don't play nice with WMA. And don't forget that every track you rip now has to live on your HD twice, unless you want to live with the new organization system imposed by iTunes, and you want to do everything with that music in iTunes.
Sansas easily match the iPod in terms of sound quality. Yup, you read right. Most players have crappy sound compared to an iPod. The sansa players are equivalent, and the earbuds that Sandisk ships with them are BETTER than the factory iPod buds. I have been offered $50 aftermarket Sony earbuds as a trade for my Sansa buds, and turned the trade down. Well done on the buds, Sandisk.
The Bad:
I do have to knock Sandisk for the video features on these players. They will not play MP4 video out of the box. That sucks. (Yeah, I know that was supposed to be added to the Fuze, but I've tried to convert videos using many different settings, and the only successful conversions I've done have been in Sansa Media Converter.) Adding generic MP4 support would be a huge bonus.
All said it is a great option for Windows users who are tired of the crap they have to deal with on the iPod.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Ok, enough with Apple already
Look, the devices are really cool and work pretty well most of the time. But until the software catches up, I'm not buying. Yes, MAC lovers - the software looks real pretty, but it is SLOW.
Anybody else have a dual-core processor that torches conversions with Nero, TMPGenc, etc. but takes forever in iTunes? Does iTunes chop your music collection up in odd groups, wrong albums, or just screw everything up? Or what about tracks/albums in MP3 format that refuse to transfer to an iPod, leaving only a cryptic message about unable to play in this device? Yup, iTunes officially sux. And iPods are totally married to that crap.
I'm not a big MS guy either, but Steve - go hire some coders from Seattle. At least Windows Media 11 works. Quickly. Or, even better, go hire the guy who built TMPGEnc. Do something, because until you do there are a bunch of us users out there who are not going to deal with crappy performance just for a pretty interface.
Anybody else have a dual-core processor that torches conversions with Nero, TMPGenc, etc. but takes forever in iTunes? Does iTunes chop your music collection up in odd groups, wrong albums, or just screw everything up? Or what about tracks/albums in MP3 format that refuse to transfer to an iPod, leaving only a cryptic message about unable to play in this device? Yup, iTunes officially sux. And iPods are totally married to that crap.
I'm not a big MS guy either, but Steve - go hire some coders from Seattle. At least Windows Media 11 works. Quickly. Or, even better, go hire the guy who built TMPGEnc. Do something, because until you do there are a bunch of us users out there who are not going to deal with crappy performance just for a pretty interface.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Google Media Server?
www.technewsworld.com
The report this morning about Google Media Server makes Google look like the young company they are: aggressive, scatterbrained, and unaware of the past. Which in this case will probably be good for the consumer, and (as usual) Google.
Who remembers WebTV? That would be the company that tried "console surfing" (my words not theirs) and was later absorbed by Microsoft. I think "abject failure" is a little strong, but not far from the mark. And here comes Google with the same device. Of course, it works better because the tech is newer, and Google does a good job in general. Doing a good job alone is insufficient if the device lacks demand. Seriously, a guy I worked with just bought an Acer rebuilt laptop for $250. Who needs a console for surfing on a TV? Even the lowest of income brackets can afford a $250 laptop.
Oh, but wait. For all of the aforementioned reasons, the Microsofts, Ciscos, and Sonys of the world will not enter this market again until it is proven to be potentially profitable. What Google sees - and they don't - is that evolution of the net. YouTube, Revver, Metacafe, etc. (don't forget RedTube, YouPorn and their brethren either). The net is now made for TV. Google sees it, and is too young and too dumb to follow the advice of history. By the time web video resolutions reach big screen levels, they could dominate a lucrative market.
All thanks to youthful stupidity.
The report this morning about Google Media Server makes Google look like the young company they are: aggressive, scatterbrained, and unaware of the past. Which in this case will probably be good for the consumer, and (as usual) Google.
Who remembers WebTV? That would be the company that tried "console surfing" (my words not theirs) and was later absorbed by Microsoft. I think "abject failure" is a little strong, but not far from the mark. And here comes Google with the same device. Of course, it works better because the tech is newer, and Google does a good job in general. Doing a good job alone is insufficient if the device lacks demand. Seriously, a guy I worked with just bought an Acer rebuilt laptop for $250. Who needs a console for surfing on a TV? Even the lowest of income brackets can afford a $250 laptop.
Oh, but wait. For all of the aforementioned reasons, the Microsofts, Ciscos, and Sonys of the world will not enter this market again until it is proven to be potentially profitable. What Google sees - and they don't - is that evolution of the net. YouTube, Revver, Metacafe, etc. (don't forget RedTube, YouPorn and their brethren either). The net is now made for TV. Google sees it, and is too young and too dumb to follow the advice of history. By the time web video resolutions reach big screen levels, they could dominate a lucrative market.
All thanks to youthful stupidity.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Yes, I put ads on my blog - I donate enough to the military/oil complex.
I know, I know. Some of you out there erroneously believe that placing ads on a blog is the equivalent of selling your opinions to the almighty Google.
Not so. And even if it was, is it possible to support a better company. (Full disclosure: I DO NOT, HAVE NOT, and HAVE NO offer to work for Google - but I would like to) C'mon, their corporate mission statement on the IPO documents was "Don't be evil". Seriously. Haven't we seen too many corporations rattle on for 2 or 3 paragraphs about value to stockholders, shareholders, the community, and the CEO's dog - all of which then turns out to be BS when they raise all their employees health insurance premiums 500%, and only contibute to "charities" personally sponsored by the Executive Wives' club? Google's mission statement is both beautiful, right, and the hardest one is all of history to abide by. Even the attempt makes me admire the company. Who would you rather support - Microsoft? If so, you probably donate to the "Dick Chaney fund for the Kingship of America" Or your living in 1991.
Back to the topic at hand - I truly enjoy telling people what I think. I'm far from rich, and a blog isn't going to get me there. That said, if people find a service in one of Google's ads that serves a purpose for them - and the company finds a customer - who, exactly, is harmed by me making a few cents? If you don't want me, or Google, to make any money, then don't click the ads. But don't assume that the presence of the ads effects my content - it does not. Even us liberals (at least in America) believe in free enterprise.
Not so. And even if it was, is it possible to support a better company. (Full disclosure: I DO NOT, HAVE NOT, and HAVE NO offer to work for Google - but I would like to) C'mon, their corporate mission statement on the IPO documents was "Don't be evil". Seriously. Haven't we seen too many corporations rattle on for 2 or 3 paragraphs about value to stockholders, shareholders, the community, and the CEO's dog - all of which then turns out to be BS when they raise all their employees health insurance premiums 500%, and only contibute to "charities" personally sponsored by the Executive Wives' club? Google's mission statement is both beautiful, right, and the hardest one is all of history to abide by. Even the attempt makes me admire the company. Who would you rather support - Microsoft? If so, you probably donate to the "Dick Chaney fund for the Kingship of America" Or your living in 1991.
Back to the topic at hand - I truly enjoy telling people what I think. I'm far from rich, and a blog isn't going to get me there. That said, if people find a service in one of Google's ads that serves a purpose for them - and the company finds a customer - who, exactly, is harmed by me making a few cents? If you don't want me, or Google, to make any money, then don't click the ads. But don't assume that the presence of the ads effects my content - it does not. Even us liberals (at least in America) believe in free enterprise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To My Rants
Posts
All Comments
