Circa 2003 (more…)

If anybody knows where I can get a 750GB IDE hard drive, please let me know. I did some looking around last night and just about everywhere I found was out of stock.

Also, while I am calling on your expertise, does anyone know if SATA drives draw more, less, or the same amount of power as their IDE equivalents?

Farhad Manjoo is critical of Microsoft’s new ad campaign:

But it’s a terrible strategy for the long term. What happens when the economy improves? What happens when young, telegenic people in L.A. can once again spend $1,300 or $1,500 or more for a laptop? What will they do when they hear from Lauren that her $700 machine is grindingly slow and that hauling it around is cramping her acting career? By selling people lots of cheap Windows PCs now, Microsoft risks cementing the idea that PCs are cheap. And in the computer business, “cheap” isn’t an adjective you want to court. Customers may start to think that paying a bit more will get them something better. And when they can afford to pay more, they will.

I really have no idea what he’s basing this on. Dell sells cheap computers and they’re one of the most successful PC producers out there. ThinkPads are good computers and even before the most recent downturn Dell was kicking IBM’s posterior to the point that IBM was losing money and sold the ThinkPad/ThinkCenter line to Lenovo.

Further, let’s look at the fastest-growing component of the laptop market: Netbooks. Netbooks are technologically inferior to laptops in most every way. The processors are weaker and can’t run the latest OSes. The monitors are smaller. The main two advantages are price and convenience, but those seem to be the only advantages that they need. The convenience comes in the form of size and battery life. You can argue that this makes the computer “better”, but I think it’s more likely that the driving factor is price. A television spot pointing out how much cheaper these computers are than their full-blood laptop counterparts would not even remotely be stupid.

The main advantage that PCs have over Mac are… price and convenience. The same as netbooks. And, like netbooks, they’re good enough. Not good enough for me personally, but I am not the average computer user.

Mac people (and Manjoo and McCracken) like to point out that once you count all that’s included with the Macintosh computer, it’s actually not any more expensive than PCs. Sure, but that’s deciding what’s “needed” in a computer based on what the Mac is offering. It’s playing entirely on Apple’s home field. If you need what Mac has to offer, you’re probably better off getting a Mac! But if you don’t need those things, you don’t need to put down the extra money. You don’t need to deal with the inconveniences of using a less commonplace operating system.

Manjoo thinks that Microsoft’s play is that “We’re cheaper” when I think a strong part of that is “We’re all you need and they’re going to take more of your money.” Dell remains successful where Packard Bell and Compaq failed because Dell makes a product that is good enough. Windows, despite its many flaws, does the same. Since the people they’re selling to are people that already own PCs, they know that their audience knows that. Whereas Mac boosters want the computers judged on Apple’s home field, this advertisement plays ball on Microsoft’s. We’re here, we’re fine, and we’re all you need to pay for.

-{Disclaimer: I may or may not be employed by one of the companies mentioned in this article or one of its competitors. Be that as it may, I have no substantial professional stake – even in the shortest of short terms – in the success or failures in the products or companies mentioned}-

Be sure to come by Friday or this weekend. I plan to post the second ever unaltered photograph of myself. I don’t know whether or not it will still be there next week.

Harry McCracken thinks that in short order Smartphones are going to become the dominant form of PCs:

The next computer is the smartphone–ones like the iPhone, the BlackBerry, the T-Mobile G1, and many of the handsets that debuted a couple of weeks ago at Mobile World Congress in Barcelona.

On some level, this is an extremely uncontroversial statement. When I chat with folks about Technologizer and tell them that phones are one of our most important topics, I explain how my former employer PC World launched in 1983, when the PC was new–and I say that for this new era of smartphones-as-personal-computers, 2009 is 1983 all over again. Everybody gets that.

But when I say that smartphones are the new PCs, I don’t just mean that they’re PC-like–I mean that they’re going to become the primary form of PCs over the next few years. The time is going to come when even a netbook will look as retro as a PDP-8, and I don’t think it’s all that far off.

When I was a freshman in college, I was told by not one but two professors that five years hence all applications would be run on the Internet and that local computers would be little more than terminals. It’s been ten years. These days, I hear that within five years all applications would be run on the Internet and that local computers would be little more than terminals. The terminology and likely execution has changed, though, so the predictions remain bold!

I mention internet apps because that’s a part of McCracken’s calculation. He expects that the smartphone computers will thrive because of Cloud Computing, which is the latest way that applications are going to all start being run remotely. As it was going to be ten years ago, it will be any day now.

If you haven’t already picked up on my skepticism of McCracken’s claim, let me say outright that I am skeptical. Very skeptical. What I hate about positions like this is that they are lazy. They are not forward-looking at all. McCracken throws out a few ideas as to how this is going to happen and then nods as if he has proven his case. He hasn’t. He overlooks some rather crucial elements insofar as how people actually use their machines. He doesn’t address the most obvious counterpart: Desktop PCs can do a lot of things out there better and cheaper than any alternative.

The question that McCracken should have asked himself is: Why do desktops still exist today? After all, we have laptops now. Laptops can already do exactly the same things that he’s claiming that smartphones will be able to do tomorrow and have been able to for quite some time. The “clam” he refers to is little more than a laptop docking station, which fell out of disuse a long time ago. Most people don’t need their laptops to be desktops. They have desktops for that. Instead of one replacing the other, they mostly coexist. Further, rather than coming closer together, they’re moving farther apart. The netbooks are the laptop market moving away from replacing desktops and towards laptops that are meant for more specified tasks.

It is extremely difficult for me to imagine that smartphones will succeed where laptops failed. Particularly when laptops were already remarkably closer to desktops in form and functions than smartphones will ever be. Laptops can have the same processing power as PCs. Their screens are in the same ballpark if not exactly comparable. Everything about the smartphone that points to it as being a successor to the desktop, the laptop was closer.

Smartphones are getting faster every day, but they’re still slow. Smartphones are rife with proprietary technology in ways that PCs (and even laptops) are not. Smartphones, by virtue of their need to be compact, have specialized parts for just about every model. They lack flexibility. They lack memory and hard drive space. Oh, and of course they lack processing power. And however fast tiny processors on tiny smartphones advance, it won’t be as fast as PC chips. McCracken is convinced that this will become less an issue because of web-based applications.

Now where have I heard that before?

Actually, I appreciate him bringing it up because I really do think that it’s the same faulty thinking at work here. Web-based applications sound great until you ignore the advantages of having your own software installed just the way you like it on your own computer. It doesn’t make sense to do a lot of these things over the internet. Sure, internet connections will get faster over time… but processors won’t? They’ll never catch up. They’ll never be necessary because it’ll be as easy to just use the laptop that you have the software installed on than it will be to log on to some software site to use the software that you’ve purchased.

Whenever you voice your objections and concerns about having all of your software installed and processing on some network server, you just get a blank look and an assurance of that’s how it’s going to be. Because it makes sense. Tell them why it doesn’t make sense for you and they will tell you why you’re the exception and technical geeks and article-writers like them who find it spiffy-cool are the norm. Linux geeks have less hubris.

What McCracken is saying about smartphones could actually happen. It could. Maybe web-apps will finally take off like we’ve been promised for so long. I certainly use GMail in a way that has made email software redundant. But any prediction that takes web-apps as a given is on some pretty shaky ground.

Whatever the case, I do expect smartphones to get smarter until we start thinking of them as a separate computer. I have long predicted the sorts of things that he’s talking about where you will be able to hook your smartphone into a console sort of thing and be able to do a lot more with it than a PC. Most likely, though, I think what we’ll see is that we plug in our phone to a PC and the PC acts as a conduit wherein you can edit files and use software in an emulation environment taking advantage of the superior hardware of the PC for your smartphone.

Right now, though, my PC doesn’t even like trading files with the smartphone.

We’re some ways off.

There were a couple posts that accidentally got posted before they were ready. They were removed and will be posted later. If you happened to see either of them, rest assured that you are not crazy.

A few of your have recently figured out some of the locations that I discuss on this site. Some locations, such as Zaulem, are open secrets. Others, such as Colosse, are a little more closely guarded. I ask that you all be cautious before giving out details of the city. I know that sometimes Web and I give stuff away, but we spit out details sporadically and in careful doses so that while the sum of all evidence may point in the right direction, casual readers won’t immediately be able to identify it. Some areas to avoid are dominant industries, landmarks, events, and of course the actual names of locations. Not only do I want to guard the information, but the truth behind the fiction is a little more complicated than it initially appears and even knowing the broad strokes the specifics may refer to something different.

I’m not asking you to unknow what you know, but do tread a bit carefully.

I have added a new feature if you want to write a post but aren’t sure if it’s something that I might not want posted. If you put the word “moderateme” (one word, no spaces or quotes) it’ll go to the moderation queue. That way I can take a look at it. Most likely I will pass it on through. I may redact a specific reference (but will always make a note if I do). Or I may email you and let you know what the problem is.

Note, if you have something that you know that I won’t want posted, don’t test the moderateme feature with it. It’s worked when I’ve tested it, but I don’t know if it will always work perfectly.

Also, a comment sent to the moderation queue will look as though it was posted. I’m not sure why that is the case, but it is. The thing is that only you can see it. I haven’t figured out exactly how that works yet.

Thank you for your cooperation!

How to Map a Network Drive (from a Windows Share) in Linux

1. Create a directory within the Linux file-system. Depending on whether the directory is in the user’s area, this can be done either in the GUI (the same way you would create a folder for Windows, more-or-less) or by going into the terminal and typing “sudo mkdir /path/name”. Then type password.
2. Install an application called WINBIND. Go into a repository and work your way all the way down to “winbind”. Note that typing a search may or may not find it, but it is definitely there. Click on the box to install and click “Yes” and “Okay” as many tims as required.
3. Update something called the NSSWITCH file by typing “sudo nano /etc/nsswitch.conf” at the Terminal and then, in the document that opens, put the word “wins” prior to the word “dns” on the “hosts:” line. Save document and exit.
4. Go into the terminal and type “sudo smbmount //servername/sharename /mountdirectory -o username=username,password=password”. You may have to type in your password again.
5. Update something called the FSTAB. From the terminal type “sudo gedit /etc/fstab” (password may be required). Create an entry by typing “//servername/sharename /mountdirectory smbfs username=userename,password=password 0 0”
6. For each additional share that you would like to map, repeat steps 4 and 5.

How to map a Windows network drive in Windows 2000 and XP:

1. Find drive and share in Network Neighborhood
2. Right-click folder, click “Map network drive”, and assign drive letter.
3. Repeat steps for each drive that you wish to map.

IT Management has a review up comparing Windows 7 to Ubuntu (to XP) on a new Netbook. If you’re getting a netbook, it might be worth your while. This post is about something from the comment section, though. Stuart notices that the writer made excuses for some of the failures on Windows 7 but admitted quick defeat when running into WiFi problems on Ubuntu:

OK so you go to the effort of fixing the broken Windows installation. But when Ubuntu has a problem with WiFi drivers you just criticize it. We all know that some WiFi chip makers have been very hostile to Linux.

Actually, I didn’t know that. I commented on a previous post that my WiFi works better with Linux than it does with Windows for both Ubuntu and Mandriva (not Mythbuntu, though). But I mentioned it to my friend Tony and he confirmed that WiFi is a bit of a problem area due to lack of cooperation on the part of chipmakers.

Here is the thing about the lack of cooperation by chipmakers and how much more difficult that makes it for Linux developers.

It. Does. Not. Matter.

That Linux has a good excuse for the fact that WiFi may have difficulty working will not make my WiFi magically start to work. When buying a Netbook, I’m not going to say “Well, I want WiFi, but it’s the chipmaker’s fault so I’m going to get the OS where WiFi doesn’t work right.”

Ten years ago we were having the same discussion about hardware drivers of the more basic sort (audio, video, etc). I couldn’t get Audio on RedHat and was told that it’s not Linux’s fault because Creative Labs didn’t make the drivers. As the saying goes about alcoholism, it’s not your fault but it is your problem. If Linux wanted people to make the transition, they had to take ownership.

Which, fortunately, they did. Linux driver support for my various and sundry computers exceeds Windows’s despite the latter’s inherent advantages. And I fully expect them to get there with WiFi chips, too. No doubt in my mind.

This is likely to be an ongoing problem for Linux, unfortunately. They’re likely to continue to be a step behind. Newer hardware will always focus on working with Windows first and Linux somewhere just before Amiga and Novell. I’m not sure what precisely Linux can do about this. But they’ve got to figure out something because it really doesn’t matter to the user that Linux developers are better at making lemonaid out of limes than are Microsoft developers. They care primarily about how it tastes.

The other problem with Stuart’s comment is that hitting walls with Windows 7 is excusable because it’s a beta product. The Ubuntu he installed was a release. If he’d been doing the same for Vista, that’d be a better argument. But nobody defends Vista.

-{Disclaimer: I may or may not be currently employed by an entity that is either mentioned in or competes directly or indirectly with an entity mentioned in this post. All positions I hold are independent of any such relationships and were held prior to the time that any such relationships began.}-

I periodically google to see if I can find any Lost watch parties in either Soundview (where I live) or Enterprise City (where I work). You know, a bar or restaurant or something that’s doing a showing. Sort of like the theater in Estacado.

No luck so far, but bizarrely, by putting in key words such as lost watch party enterprise city, the third link down was a posting on Monster.com that is, judging by the rather specific description, for a software testing position on the team that I’m working on.

What are the odds of that?