Microsoft keeps doling out the pain, because consumers are not well informed

Ok, so now the dust has settled on operating systems, and Microsoft finally has a viable product. The Vista era just simply made people pissed off. Windows 7 was what Vista should have been, but here's the problem with consumers; they don't fully understand what they are purchasing it before it's too late, and Microsoft is clearly taking full advantage of it. What really pissed me off were those Windows 7 commercials? Especially the one about how Vista kept on crashing and the lady was quite please that it was her idea that a OS should be stable. Ummm, uhhh, an OS should already be that; STABLE!!!

Most misinformed consumers have purchased duds (myself included) a Windows Vista machine, which DELL, nor Microsoft could fix without having to shell out $$ for the fix. It should have been included in the cost of the machine that never worked in the first place. Now that I have test driven Windows 7 on the diseased-riddened Vista computer, it seems to be very stable, but it should have been a free upgrade for all Vista users.

Because we are stuck in a rock and a hard place, Microsoft wants to hit you for more money to upgrade. What a scam? Not only that, you have to decide which level of OS you want. What a bigger scam?

An even bigger scam are these NET books that computer companies are shovelling out to the market to take your hard earned dollars and for what? They serve one purpose (Internet or something), but you cannot do what you really want them to do when you really need it. These NET books contain Windows 7 Starter. What is that? It doesn't even register on the Windows Licensing radar. This means you have to shell out more money for something you should already have.

I am no longer a Microsoft lover, and I got sucked into the dark side of Apple, but for very good reasons. I like the simplicity of ONE version of an Operating System: Mac OSX Snow Leopard. At least you are not limited by your choice of OS to limit the capabilities of your hardware, rather the hardware is your only limitation. That also means that all users can leverage the capability that a 64-bit system can bring. Not that every single operation on the computer will need that power, but at least it is there when you need it. Most computers nowadays if not all of them are 64-bit capable. So YTF are we still in the 32-bit world? It's because consumers don't know any better, and they don't really need that kind of power, and the majority of users use computers for basic everyday operations such as e-mail and Internet browsing.

These NET books have a very short lifespan. Why not spend the extra dough and get a proper machine that will last 3 times as long as what a NET book would.

The Apple Macbook and Macbook Pro did it right with the laptop. The really neat feature of the Apple laptop is the close and open feature, which is brill. When I am done, I close the computer, and it sleeps properly. When I open it, it is ready for use. The load-up is instantaneous, and it saves me a huge amount of upstart and shutdown time. I have had laptops overheat (and luckily didn't get destroyed) from putting my laptop into my bag too early when I was rushed to board an airplane.

My advice, get a 13" Macbook Pro or an iPad. It serves every purpose you would need and more. All it really needs now is built in Cell Phone Network capabilities.

Confusion about upgrading memory in a Mac

The one major thing that you can do with your computer is to maximize the RAM, but the hardest thing is to figure out whether the memory you purchased is right for the computer that you are putting it in.  Then you have the added issue of making sure the memory is right for the "OS".  Well, this article is going to try address these issues.

Given that the Mac has moved from the PPC chip to the Intel chip, you would think that any PC type memory could be jammed into the Mac and it would work.  Well, it's true!!!  You can plug in PC memory into the Mac and it would work.  Saving you a lot of money rather than going directly to the Apple Store to get your memory or paying the little extra dough to by memory that is branded for the Apple on online stores.

But why would online stores who market memory for the Mac cost more?  I took a long look at the specifications for the PC and Mac Memory, and they are the same.  So make sure you don't fork out the extra $10 to buy the memory that is marketed for the Mac.  It's the same memory!!!

If you decide to upgrade your memory, do make sure that you get the right style, and nowadays this is much harder than it was 10 years ago, because now there are so many different flavours of memory types.

Before purchasing your memory, find out what type you need by going to:

Finder | Go | Utilities (Shift-Command-U) | System Profiler | Memory

The following are things to consider when buying memory:

• Laptop Memory vs. Desktop Memory (iMac and Mac Mini use Laptop Memory)
• SDRAM vs DDR1/2/3
• PC/PC2 xxxx
• Number of Pins
  

Then there are other things to consider like whether the memory is fast enough, whether the memory is "Buffered", and whether to overclock.

How fast the memory behaves is based the read/write memory blocks of the against the number of clock cycles required to complete the task.  This is defined by CAS Latency or CL Timings, most memory performs at a reasonable rate.  The most frustrating was that there were no CL Timings listed for Mac memory, however if you look up the manufacturer's website, you can find those out by matching the PC specifications with the Mac ones.

The other consideration to purchasing memory is "Buffered" memory.  These types of memory are used in servers, and store instructions that are used continuously, and you will rarely find "Buffered" memory in laptops.

As for overclocking, I never choose to overclock, because overclocking will overheat your system, unless you have the necessary hardware to keep you computer cool.

If you are interested in understanding more about memory, here is a great article that describes the different types of memory in detail.

In summary, save your money, don't be sold on the memory that seems to claim that the memory is guaranteed to work on the Mac.  However, ensure that you are purchasing the correct memory by matching the memory specifications described by what is already in your system.

Is moving Adobe CS from PC to Mac painful?

Do not think straight out that you can just purchase the upgrade of the other OS version, and expect that your upgrade license number would work with it.  It won't.  Why do you think is it so hard to migrate applications between platforms?

Well, for one thing, it's not that easy for software vendors to do that.  It's almost like when Adobe and Macromedia competed with each other that web and graphics designers had to decide on whether to go the Adobe or Macromedia route.  Once they committed to their software of choice, they were committed.  Deciding to switch would mean to give up the initial cost of their original purchase and shelling out another $2000 to get the other suite.  Even if the companies accepted their competitor's licenses, how could they even verify that the license were legitimate to allow their customer to purchase the full suite as an upgrade.

With Vista tanking in sales, and Microsoft man-handling their vendors to sell Vista, its no wonder so many people have switched to Macs: including myself.  And all who have switch, would like to move all of their software over as well.  Certainly, Boot Camp and VMWare Fusion or Parallels would offer a short-term solution, but it would be nice to be able to run the software natively, and not have to be dependent on multiple OS for an end-user's solution set.  So many have requested that Adobe (mainly) and many other vendors to provide a way to move their licenses over to the Mac.

First of all, Adobe is not obligated to provide this to their customers, but if they didn't, it would put them in the same boat as Microsoft, and piss off their loyal customers.  Because the licensing structure was probably created differently in each of the OS implementations of the same software, it would have been hard to have had the ability to create cross-license checks.  So the reason why Adobe is asking you to "destroy" the software (hence the Letter of Destruction) is because they are essentially giving the end-user a completely new license for the price of an upgrade (hence the reason why the switch is only eligible to upgrades and not cross-version).

So Adobe is taking extra steps to provide a solution to your problems, as they are asking us to take extra steps to ensure that certain things are in order.  A little pain for long-term gain.

How painless to transition to a Mac and run VMWare Fusion to access my Windows-Dependent Applications

I have just invested in an iMac, and I can tell you how easy it was for me to convert to it. Yes, there are a few things to get used to, but I can tell you that those transitions were painless. For those who are hard-core gamers, nothing beats a Windows XP box for the best games out there. So, the solution is simple: do a dual-boot system with the iMac.

The steps were painless:

1. Upon opening my iMac with OS X 10.5.6, I set up the partition with Boot Camp.
2. Installed XP on the Boot Camp Partition (to start the Boot Camp Partition, use the "Option" Key, very important)
3. Put the OS X DVD in to the SuperDrive, and the drivers automatically installed the drivers onto XP.
4. Booted in OS X, and purchased and installed VMWare Fusion (Parallels is an alternative)
5. Opened the Boot Camp Partition with VMWare Fusion.

Pretty simple. Now I have several ways of using the Boot Camp Partition:

1. For hard-core Windows games: Boot right into the Boot Camp Partition.
2. For other Windows-dependent applications: Use VMWare Fusion in Unity Mode to run my Windows Applications seamlessly on the Mac. (Parallels has a similar function called Coherence)

If I only knew this sooner, I would have transitioned earlier. My only dependent app is Adobe, so in my next upgrade, I am switching over, and I can say good-bye to Windows forever.

Why Silverlight will never conquer the Web World as Flash has.

It's funny how there are so many people out there that have a hate on Flash, and how Silverlight is touted to be the Flash-Killer. Yes, it's true that I am Pro-Flash. But I don't see how Silverlight can penetrate the market with the rich multimedia experience that Flash provides.

For those of you who do not know what SilverLight is, in a nutshell. It's Client-Side .NET Scripting. I cannot dispute that .NET is a widely accepted programming language, but there are huge problems with SilverLight.

Here is the reasons why Silverlight will never be widely adopted.

1. You have to accept the download. Why do I need to download something that should already be a part of the browser? No one knows what it is, so why do I need it. This is with most dynamic content, including Flash, but everytime I see this, I ignore it.
   
2. It is made by Microsoft. Think about this for a second. SilverLight directly is in conflict with it's own market. Do you think for a second that SilverLight would ever run on Linux better than it would run on Windows? Microsoft had the odacity to alienate their customers with the release of Vista, and I would never trust them with any future technologies. All they try to do is copy others. There is no originality with this company.
   
3. The Linux Version of SilverLight is called MoonLight: An open source development. If MoonLight is being developed by another developer, it is going to present the same problems as if you tried to develop javascript website. You have to consider the behavior of each of the browsers. They will never behave the same. If Microsoft chooses not to provide the source for other operating systems, then it's not going to behave the same. Furthermore, MoonLight is having problems with being able to use some .NET Trademarked technologies, that will be lacking in its release. This is huge problem, if you decide to release anything using SilverLight, and try to run it on another OS due to copyright of .NET Objects. Does a developer want to contend with having to tinker with the behavior of the presentation layer?
   
4. Conflict of Interest: If it did run better on Linux, wouldn't people be switching to Linux. This conflicts with Microsoft's aim at capturing OS market share. Because Microsoft makes an OS, other OS will have SilverLight behave differently than it would in Microsoft.

Flash on the other hand, would dare not alienate their web users (although support in the past has been lacking on low-market share OS's) and Adobe has no interest in creating their own OS, rather they have the daunting task to be able to serve Flash in as many Web Browsers as possible and to be consistent with its behavior. Because they control the Plug-in in each OS and Browser, they are able to provide the best behavior for their product. Furthermore, because of this fact, it is a dream to program in Flash, because it is truely "Write Once". Now with Adobe AIR being able to run on multiple platforms, this proves to be powerful, because now the OS is ubiquitous. You don't ever have to be held hostage to one operating system.

Get your $#!t together microsoft.

I can't believe how much Microsoft is getting away with, in terms of selling a crap piece of software such as Vista. Haven't they learned their lesson with Win ME? I know, it's been stated, and really this is a venting post.

What gets me is the piss-poor support from Microsoft and Dell, when I bought this laptop that I am writing on. The single most disappointing purchase of my life. I am writing to you from this computer under UBUNTU, not Vista. It hasn't failed me yet, but Vista couldn't be up and running for a day. I get blue screens, and restarts without any notice.

It's one thing about an operating system that gives an error, and another about constant crashes. It the reliability factor of the computing system you have. I was a strong supporter of Microsoft in their world domination, but it seems they have just alienated everyone.

It is such a shame to see such a product out there, because we are going backwards in time, because there aren't really any alternatives. On the one hand, you can revert back to XP, but who knows if your hardware will be supported, or you can just duke it out with Vista, and expect the unexpected.

There are only a few options to choose from, if you are planning on purchasing a new computer.

1. Don't even bother right now, if you don't need to. If you are an avid Windows fan, wait a couple of years when the Windows OS is more stable. It might be 5 years given how long people had to wait for Vista.
2. Switch to UBUNTU (bootable and installable by CD) if you have already bought a computer with Vista on it or if you have a slower computer and want newer software on your obsolete Win 98 installation. UBUNTU does have its quirks, but because the software is free, the cost/benefit ratio is huge compared to taking on Vista.
3. If you must buy because you have an old, old computer. Buy a Mac.

Change is inevitable, and if you have to change, avoid Vista at all costs, and any change would cause you to relearn another operating system. Because your time is too precious to get frustrated at support folks who wish they had an easy time at their jobs supporting software that doesn't have any bugs, but then they would be out of a job.

Apple needs to allow Flash on iTouch/iPhone!

Why is such a hard task to get Flash on the iTouch/iPhone or PSP. Why? It's not hard, just allow plug-installed on Safari. I heard from a Mac dealer that Flash consumes too much battery and it runs hot, and that Adobe needs to fix their Flash before it would allow it on the phone. As in my last blog, there is not much you can do about it. Transportability vs. CPU consumption.

My opinion is that Apple chooses not to allow flash to work, because it is in direct competition with their CODEC (Quicktime). Go figure, because it would hurt their chance of wide acceptance of Quicktime that they are going to prevent the plug-in to install. What a load of ****? If the Flash player install on iTouch/iPhone hinder sales, then that is in direct opposition to what the consumers are saying. In actuality, Flash has no correlation on how successful and widely accepted the iPOD family, (mainly iTouch/iPhone) has been. Yet, I believe it would increase the sale of an iTouch/iPhone. It certainly hasn't prevented me from buying one. So why prevent Flash from being downloaded? My only conclusion would be because it is in direct conflict with QT. QT in my opinion has outlived its usefullness, although I have to say it, Flash uses it in its Flash Video conversion (so it is an industry standard).

I would like to see Flash on the iTouch/iPhone and observe the correlation with increased sales. The iTouch/iPhone has reached the masses, and the mass is saying it should be there. Why is Apple not listening to their customers? Apple should take advantage of that, and market it as being the first full-content searchable browser, which they claim, but is not true. By the way, I don't need to tell them. They already have excellent marketing.

The main reason I purchased an iTouch was the WiFi capability vs. the WiFi-less Blackberry. A reason I wouldn't purchase the BB, and consider an iPhone. Though the BB has revolutionized e-mailing, it is still behind on advancing technology, and the only reason why the BB is the way it is and others like them are the $ generated from data plans.