The Blog From Another Dimension: Mac News Archives

iWork '08, Part 2 (Numbers)

Okay, I have gone over Keynote and Pages; now on to Apple's new iWork app: Numbers.

Numbers rounds out iWork as an office/productivity package. Yes, Microsoft Office is more than just Word, Excel, and Powerpoint--but Apple provides alternatives for most other office apps as well. You get Mail, iCal, Address Book and other Office-style apps for free with the Mac OS. While Apple does not include a database app, it owns and sells FileMaker Pro, the definitive database app (both Mac and Windows versions included in a single purchase), for about $300.

But I digress. Remember, we're not talking about professionals using this suite; iWork is for the majority of computer users, not just those working in cubicles. And for most users, Numbers is not just an acceptable replacement for Excel, it is, I would argue, a preferable one. It provides all the functionality that most people would want from a spreadsheet, but a lot more flexibility and ease-of-use than Excel offers. Here's a look at a Numbers window (click for larger version):

Note that Apple has planted the spreadsheet within the iWork style, with a great similarity to Keynote in how it shows the organization of sheets and tables in the left sidebar. Let's take a look at different parts of that window:

First, the top left of the sidebar:

In Excel, worksheets are managed in small tabs along the lower left of the window; in Numbers, they are displayed here in the left sidebar. But notice that it's not just the sheets--tables and charts are listed as subsets of each sheet. This is because of a new organization/layout paradigm Apple has introduced. Instead of the spreadsheet (as in Excel) being a grid of rows and columns for data entry, with charts and other objects floating above it, Apple starts instead with a blank sheet. Tables with rows and columns float above the blank sheet alongside the charts and other objects.

Instead of your table occupying a small portion of a massive underlying grid, it exists as a manageable, finite table which you can easily style and place to your specific taste. Each table acquires the A-B-C/1-2-3 column and row control headers whenever you click within a table; otherwise, these headers vanish to give you a true print-layout look. If you resize the table at the right or the bottom, the excess rows and columns simply disappear (though you cannot delete cells with data in them in this manner--the resize simply stops moving at the edge of the data).

One advantage here is that you can define column widths more flexibly. Using Excel, I have often wanted to have one table placed below another, but have wanted the column widths to vary. Without fancy and kludgy footwork in Excel, this is nearly impossible. In Numbers, it comes naturally.

Styles can also be easily assigned. There is a Styles pane at the lower area of the left sidebar which allows you to quickly assign a complete design style to any individual table you are working on.

These styles are easily edited. Just change the colors, borders, headers and so forth to your liking, and then click the arrow to the right of the style you used as a basis; choose "create new style," give it a name, and it is added to the styles pane for future use.

Another element in Numbers is the automation of headers within the table. Click on one of the three "Headers and Footer" buttons and your table will acquire a row at the top or bottom or a column at the left, all of which will stay rooted there no matter how you change the table. Names assigned in these areas will automatically be grabbed by any chart you create.

What's more, you can use these header names in formulas. Let's say that you are making a table of expenses; months are listed at left, and expense types are along the top. You want to add the food expenses from May and July in a formula. Usually, you would have to track the rows and columns to find the alphanumeric cell addresses--in this case, C6+C8. Numbers allows another option: just type in the header names. In the example below, I typed "May Food" and "July Food." Note the equation is accepted, and the referenced cells color in:

However, they don't have to be in that order; "Food May" and "July Food" works just as well, as do the traditional alphanumeric references. Individual cell references are automatically filled in this way if you simply click on the desired cell when creating a formula (though it does not work that way for ranges of cells).

Another nice touch is the addition of a sample function preview just below the styles. If you select multiple cells with data in them, the answers to various function equations appear in this area. This also happens in Excel, but this is something which most Excel users, including myself, do not notice even after years of use--because the design of Excel makes this feature very hard to see. This is an excellent example of the importance of design; everyone who uses Numbers sees this almost immediately. What's more, you can use it as a formula shortcut: after selecting the range of cells you want to use a function for, just drag and drop the function from this area onto the cell where you want a formula to appear, and it does (this extra touch is not possible in Excel, by the way--at least not Excel 2003).

Once you get used to these shortcuts, making formulas and working with tables becomes dead easy.

Charts are just as simple--none of this four-step "Chart Wizard" nonsense. Just select the data on the table that you want to make a chart out of, select the chart style, and bam, there it is.

The controls for the appearance of the chart are detailed and allow you to design the chart any way you'd like, making a nice 2-D or 3-D representation of the data. There are too many variables to go over in detail in a review like this, but they include style, fills, rotation, separation of data, so forth and so on--again, the same kind of stuff available in Excel, but more nicely and simply presented, and with a better end effect.

Let me give an example of one control: fill colors and patterns. If I want to change the appearance of the individual elements of the chart, I just call up the chart colors palette, find a category I like, and then drag and drop it onto the chart element.

Even better, I can add fills from image files on my computer; just drag and drop an image file from the Desktop or a file window onto the chart element in Numbers, and that becomes the fill pattern. You can do the same thing using the Graphic Inspector, giving the element an Image Fill. Again, dead simple.

There are other touches as well, just as there are several oversights and drawbacks. One example of both a nice touch and an oversight is sorting. Numbers includes automatic sorting options in column headers; hover the cursor over a header and a submenu arrow appears; the submenu allows for sorting without even having to select the data first. Easy.

The oversight/drawback? You can't sort columns, only rows. Why not? I found myself wanting to when a the chart I showed above had the tallest "wall" element in front, blocking the others; I wanted to sort the columns so that the highest numbers would appear in back. No such luck. Sure, it was easy enough to rearrange the columns by hand, but a sort would have been more natural.

I haven't used Numbers yet in a real-world situation, but will over the next semester as I use it to calculate grades in my classes. I am sure there's a lot more good and not-so-good to be found yet--missing features, extra touches, and so forth. But from just playing around with it for a few days, I am more than ready to dump Excel and work exclusively with Numbers. And with Numbers topping off the iWork suite, I find myself considering simply ditching MS Office altogether and switching completely over to iWork (except for when I have to teach Office in my Computer course).

Apple allows you a free 30-day trial to play with Numbers; all features are active during that one-month period. In yet another example of accessibility, I tried the "test drive" for Office 2007 on Windows... and found myself balking when Microsoft demanded that I "activate" my trial software. I'll do it eventually, but am not fond of the idea of letting Microsoft snoop around my computer every time I want to use their software, even the free stuff. Apple's iWork trial simply started; the biggest impediment was a nicely-styled start window which showed how many days left you have in the trial.

I swear, if I didn't have to teach the MS Office suite, it would be gone from my computer....

iWork '08, Part 1 (Overview, Keynote, and Pages)

With the newest release of their "Office" software suite, Apple has finally fulfilled the potential everyone has been expecting since Apple released their presentation software, Keynote, in early 2003: to replace MS Office on the Mac. Apple's word processing software, Pages, followed two years later, in early 2005, and--as if on a 2-year schedule--Numbers has now come out in iWork '08. Now that all three apps are part of the deal, Apple's iWork suite can now be billed--for some--as a full-out replacement for MS Office. It's not for everybody--but it is a potential replacement for most Mac users. One of the biggest draws will be the price: $80 for the whole suite, as compared with up to $400 for the same set of apps in MS Office Standard Edition.

Aside from the much lower price, it is also a much simpler choice: MS Office has the usual dizzying array of "versions" that make it hard to understand what exactly you're getting. For example, why is "Home and Student" $150 when "Standard" is $400 and the big difference is that "Home and Student" has "One Note" and "Standard" has Outlook? Is Outlook worth an extra $250? But even at the dirt-cheap $150 price for the Home and Student version, Apple's iWork '08 is almost half of that price--more than half that price for the Student version (at $71).

MS Office is worse if you are in Japan: there is no "Home and Student" version here. There is a "Personal" version with Word, Excel, and Outlook (no PowerPoint) for ¥42,000 ($354); to get PowerPoint, however, you need the "Standard" version, the same as in the U.S., which is priced at ¥48,500 ($410). And they are in Japanese only--you cannot change the language to English, at least not without special tools. In contrast, iWork, like all Apple software, comes "localized" in more than a dozen languages, changing automatically whenever you change the language of the OS (another thing you can't do in Windows).

But can iWork really replace Office? The answer depends on how much of a power user you are. For example, do you know what a pivot table is, or do you ever use such a thing? How about cross-referencing in a word processing app? If you depend on relatively esoteric power tools in office suite apps, then iWork will not work well for you. For good or for bad, Apple has aimed this suite squarely at non-professional users--"the rest of us," as it were. But if you don't use these highly advanced features, then you'll find iWork can work very, very well for you. It will produce slicker documents more easily, and still have a lot of features you'll never get around to needing.

One potential drawback: if you're used to using Microsoft Office, you might run into the same problems many switchers have: running in "Office" mode, expecting iWork to work exactly as you have expected Office to work. Just as Windows users grouse about how the Mac OS doesn't do things the way they've come to expect in Windows, iWork will also take a bit of re-training. But your troubles will not come from switching to a badly-designed app; instead, it will be because you are switching from a poorly-designed app to a better-designed one. Certainly this is true in Keynote; whether it is true in Pages is a bit more debatable.

All right, let's take a look at what's new in the iWork suite.

First is Apple's oldest element of iWork, Keynote. With Keynote '08, the fourth major revision of the software, Apple's presentation package feels a lot more mature. Like all of the iWork suite apps, it does not have the minute controls of its MS Office counterpart, nor the myriad little features and effects with as many options. What it does have is pretty much everything you need to use, in a simpler, slicker package, and with effects and presentation features that make your slide show look a lot nicer than Office can make it look. There's a lot more "Wow" in Keynote than there is in PowerPoint. A lot of it comes from the slick animation and transition effects.

Those effects get a big boost with one major new feature in Keynote '08: Actions. An action is an advanced form of animation based upon movement, scale, rotation, or opacity. These effects can be used separately or in combination; for example, you could have a photo that starts at point A and moves to point B, and as it does so, it rotates, grows smaller, and fades out all at the same time.

The most fun is the "Move" feature; you can use bezier points to assign a complex path made up of straight lines, corners, and curves. As you can make the object change size, transparency, and angle at any point along the way, you can have some fun making your object dance around as you like.

Apple used this new feature to create more complex bundles of actions, called "Smart Builds." There are ten such, and they essentially are different ways to view more than one image based upon complex animation techniques.

Included in the "Smart Builds" are a spinning cube with a different image on each side; a turntable (a la Front Row) where images take a turn rotating to the front; a "thumbing" effect which simulates photos being shuffled from front to back as if by hand; and many more.

Each build has a number of options, and, as is usual with iWork apps, it's dead-easy to generate the effect.

Another new feature that has been added to the whole suite is something called "Instant Alpha." Essentially, it is the ability to make a certain color disappear, but a bit more advanced. If you have an image where a background is mostly one color or range of colors, and the foreground element is a different color/range, then you can (usually) make the whole background disappear. Just drag a circle around the colors you want to make disappear, and they get blanked out.

You can perform the same technique several times in one image, and the areas to be blocked out are highlighted dynamically, letting you ease off or push forward as is needed. Two problems, however: first, selections are only made contiguously, so if you have lots of small pockets of color to make disappear, then your task becomes a lot harder (see the bird in the image below, and how I missed some of the white sky behind it in certain places); and second, the effect only works well on a small number of photos, such that you have to almost take specific photos designed to work well with the effect. See three different images with varying levels of success below:

Next is Pages. There are some much-needed new small touches--for example, added shapes no longer appear automatically inline with the text; that glitch caused a lot of confusion for a lot of people. New objects now appear as floating, allowing you to move them outside the margins, with the option to make them appear inline if you wish.

A much more significant addition is the formatting toolbar, putting the most important editing tools where you need them, instead of having to hunt them down in the inspector, or conjure up the Font palette. Shown above are the three variations depending on context--text, tables, and objects (click for full view). That makes it not only a lot easier to format, but it also makes it easier for people switching over from MS Word. One remaining complaint: the lack of WYSIWYG font menus. Yes, the Font palette will give you some WYSIWYG, but only in the "Favorites" and "Recent" views... and I never liked the Font palette anyway.

Other changes are a bit less than stellar, but still useful. There are now separate modes for layout: "word processing" and "page layout." The first works like a standard word processor--type within the margins. The second is more like using a professional layout program like InDesign, in that it relies on text boxes instead of the standard typing paradigm. These different modes were both possible before, but here they have been better defined and separated, with templates made for each mode.

Pages '08 also allows for change tracking, showing what was changed in a document and when--more useful for collaborative office situations, though I could see it as potentially useful for writing essays as well. Change tracking is one of those very popular high-level features that most people don't use, but enough have demanded that Apple has included them--like Mail Merge, which was added in Pages 2. There are also new graphic tools, such as picture frames, the above-described Instant Alpha, and other image-handling tools. Most are slight, cosmetic changes that may or may not be useful to different people.

Aside from that, Pages is pretty much as it always has been. It's now a bit more easy-to-use, and a bit more flexible. I still have not made the complete switch to Pages from MS Word, however, in large part because of the remaining accessibility issues regarding font formatting--namely, the messed-up interface regarding the Font palette. I tried to get around this with keyboard shortcuts, but Apple has not implemented that feature as well as I would have liked. It works well for commands in the main menus, but any command in a pop-up menu will not allow a keyboard shortcut to work unless the pop-up menu has first been activated. Which kind of defeats the purpose of a shortcut.

But that reason is highly specific to me; Pages should work fine as a primary word processing program for most everybody--and despite my foibles about the Fonts palette, I could certainly be happy using it if I really wanted to shove Microsoft out of my life. As it is, I use Pages half the time, and MS Word half the time.

Both Keynote and Pages are nominal upgrades, not complete reworkings of previous versions. Both apps have been inching forward, adding useful new tools and features with each new version--never so much that they become feature-bloated like MS Office apps, and always keeping focus on maintaining the Apple design paradigm of slick-but-simple (for better or for worse, depending on your point of view).

The real new change, however, is Numbers... and I find myself running both long in column space and short of time. So a review of Numbers will come soon. In short, however: Numbers fills out the suite and lets you leave MS Office behind--again, so long as you're not a power user dependent on Office feature-bloat.

Surprise Rise

Surprise! Apple sold more iPhones than it seemed from the AT&T report yesterday. Almost twice as many, in fact. Not a million in ten days, as many thought, but they fully expect a million sales by September. But what really surprised the market was the earning report overall: record sales. A 33% increase in computer sales over the same quarter last year, and 150,000 more computer sales than any quarter in the company's history. Considering that the OS is two years old and many people are doubtlessly waiting to buy a Mac for when Leopard is released in October, that's pretty damned impressive.

Clearly, I'm not the only one who thinks so: while Apple stock rose $2.23 (1.65%) during the day's trading, it has shot up an amazing additional $11.38 (8.3%) at this time in after-hours trading, to stand at $148.50 per share--and is still rising. Yesterday would have been an incredibly good time to buy Apple stock....

An addendum, however: an element of the stock's fall and rise is tied to the NASDAQ exchange, which fell 2% yesterday, and rose again today, along with other indexes. This undoubtedly helped Apple's movement in both directions.

Panic Drop

The stock market can be skittish, especially with a successful stock that people think may be overvalued. Confidence dropped in Apple yesterday due to news from AT&T that "only" 146,000 iPhone activations were made in the Q2 of 2007; people had expected half a million. Doesn't matter that the reaction is nonsensical, almost farcical; what matters is that people panicked. So the stock fell by $8.81, or 6.13% on the news.

Why "nonsensical"? Because people apparently did not realize that the 146,000 number represented only a short time, cut shorter by certain factors many did not take into account. There was the belief that at least 200,000 iPhones were sold in the first two days, maybe as many as 400,000, or some dared to think even half a million. So 146,000 is disappointing, right?

Well, not quite. There are three mitigating factors:

• First of all, it was not two days of sales--it was slightly over one day, specifically 30 hours. Sales began at 6 pm on June 29th, and ended before midnight on the 30th. That represents a much shorter time in which to sell product, in terms of percentage.
• Second, AT&T did not report on iPhone sales, they reported iPhone activations. That cuts the potential time frame shorter--not everyone activated their phones within minutes of purchase, and a delay of hours put many out of the time frame. Some iPhones were bought for resale, as gifts, etc.
• And finally, AT&T famously had issues with activation in that first 30 hours, which meant that many couldn't activate until after the end of Q2.

However, the market did what it did: it reacted, having nothing else to go on. Some misunderstood and sold short, some panicked and dropped out, and others took advantage of the situation, and it snowballed. You can bet that there was some pressure to drive the market down so that people could buy lower and take profit later. It certainly didn't help that a telecom analyst chose that moment to release an undetailed report that inventory was "decent" and demand had seen a "significant decline"--something which should be a no-brainer when you have massive lines at a release; such lines never sustain themselves. As for inventory, they sold out virtually nationwide before they could restock--but then they restocked enough to satisfy the post-release demand. That analyst firm had no actual knowledge or numbers to work on; in effect, they were guessing.

The real tell will be when Apple makes its report, and we find out the actual sales numbers. Jobs may even quote sales beyond that initial 30 hours in order to calm those who can't see beyond the "two days" number. Who knows, it could be bad news there, too. The point is, there is no real way to tell yet. Of course, people with itchy fingers try to anyway, and that's how you get reactions like today's. Personally, I'm not worried; I'm in it for the long haul, and even if there's another $8 drop or two, I'm still way ahead, and those numbers will go up again, of that I am confident.

Update: A few more notes on the CIBC analysts' announcement. First off, they measured demand apparently by having some of their people hang out at Apple Stores, looking at the number of iPhone boxes on display, and noting how many people at those stores seemed to be looking at or buying iPhones. A less-scientific measure of sales could not be imagined. They do not state how many stores they looked at, at which hours, for how long, or even if AT&T stores were also watched. They have zero knowledge of how many units were ordered online. And worst of all, CIBC includes a disclaimer that it "does and seeks to do business with companies covered in its research reports"--in other words, they could have a huge conflict of interest and bias in this. The fact that they waited until just after AT&T released activation figures to release this report raises serious questions--it could not have been better-timed to knock Apple shares tumbling down. They may or not be right, just as anyone guessing may or may not be right, but their credibility here is incredibly questionable.

Apples and Vistas

Wow... this article is a pretty startling example of distortion--so much so, that I'm pretty sure its author works for the GOP... or Microsoft... or both. Here's the first paraagrph:

Windows Vista's share of online users has increased every month this year, while rival Mac OS X -- to which Vista has often been compared -- has shown little, if any, growth, a metrics company reports.

This is one of those grand lies that uses the truth distorted in several ways to give a completely false impression. Pretty spectacular, if you know what it's really talking about and how it uses massively different cases and compares them side-to-side as if they were on equal standing. Either this writer is so idiotic and clueless about computers that Computerworld should fire him, or he is dishonest to an astonishing degree... and Computerworld should fire him.

It's hard to figure out where to start. First off, he's comparing Windows Vista--Microsoft's new Windows OS--with all Mac OS versions out there. We all know that Windows has something like 90%+ of the OS market share (exact stats are in dispute, but that's the general area), while Apple has most of the rest. So any version of Windows will have the potential to gain far more market share than all versions of the Mac OS for that reason alone. It would be like selling accessories for the iPod vs. the Zune: you sell more because the customer base is many times bigger, not because your product is better.

What's more, Vista use more or less has to grow, since most new PC sales have Vista pre-installed. Vista growth is virtually guaranteed, even despite its massive flaws. Here, I'll make a startling prediction: in five years, most PC users will be running Vista! What a breathtakingly daring prediction! Of course, this is a no-brainer: in five years, most Windows users will have bought a new Windows computer, and unless they go way out of their way to get XP installed (or switch to a Mac, which more and more are doing), they will be using Vista--but by Hobson's Choice, not necessarily their own.

In short, the writer compares (1) a new product filling a vast, pre-existing reservoir with (2) an existing product (which not only hasn't been updated in a few years, but is now waiting for an upgrade in three months, no less--something which dampens sales, if anything) with a much smaller existing user base gaining market share by fighting tooth and nail to convert people from one system to another.

However, there is one reason you can see the writer doing this: it's the only way to make Vista sales seem strong. Which makes me wonder about how big a kickback this guy is getting from Redmond. There has been ample evidence that Vista adoption has been slow; in fact, so many people asked Dell to sell computers with XP installed that the computer maker started offering it as a regular product. Think about that: scores of new customers demanded that a 6-year-old piece of software be installed on their computers so that they could avoid having a brand-new OS included in their computer, even though the price would be identical.

What's more, the Computerworld writer uses very specific Mac OS usage stats (as reported by a Windows-centric organization) to make it seem like Mac usage is falling:

Mac OS X, meanwhile, accounted for 6.22 percent in January and hit its high point of 6.46 percent in May, but it slipped back to 6 percent in June.

To see how he played fast and loose with the numbers, look at the chart below, with the figures he quoted circled in red:

Note that the January number was at the high end of a very fast climb for OS X users. Had he quoted stats year-over-year, that is, July 2006 to July 2007, he would have had to admit that Mac OS X use has increased from 4.29% to 6.00%--and that the "slip" he mentioned is a month-to-month variation--a hiccup, not a trend. The year-over-year increase is supported by the fact that Apple continues to outperform the market: sales of Mac computers shot up 26.2% year over year, while the PC market overall only rose 7.2%.

But the numbers that the Vista-friendly writer gave are deceptive in other ways as well. For example, if you just trouble yourself to get the Net Applications numbers for the Mac OS for the previous year as well, you'll notice a pattern: Mac OS share rises in the second half of the year, then stays steady in the first half of the next year. The numbers for the Mac have shot up starting in August for the past two years--which means that Mac OS share, as reported by this source, should start to jump again in the next few months:

Note that the rise in 2006 was greater and was sustained for longer than the one in 2005. So if the past is any indication, the Mac OS share should make an even bigger jump upwards this coming Autumn. All of this shows exactly the opposite of what the Computerworld writer states, as he used cherry-picked numbers to give a completely false impression.

But as long as we have nice charts made up, let's take a realistic look at market share. Windows, after all, has 90%+ market share, and Vista is trying to fill in that market. So let's give Vista a secondary axis on the chart, so it will represent how Vista is filling that reservoir of potential buyers, the Windows customer base:

Not nearly as impressive, is it? Which is why that writer had to completely fudge the numbers to make Vista look like it was doing great, when actually it's doing pretty lousy, given the built-in advantages it enjoys.

Mac Switcher Tutorial: Disk Images

When Windows users start using Macs, there are a few things which throw them off. One of them is how to close programs: in Windows, you can quit an application by closing the window, using that "X" button at the top right of the window. And while that will work in a few Mac apps (like System Preferences, for example), it will not work for most programs. Instead, closing the windows just... well, closes the windows. The app stays open. Immediately, this is only apparent by the fact that the app's menu bar is still visible, but that goes away when the user clicks on something else, like an active window from another app, or the Desktop. It's also noticeable from the Dock, where a tiny black triangle below an app's icon indicates that it's still open, or from the Command-tab program switcher--but since new Windows users don't know those, either, they don't see what's going on. A few times I have been asked by switchers as to why their Macs have slowed down so much, only to find that they are unknowingly running a dozen and a half apps at the same time with only 512MB of RAM.

So as you can see, not knowing the differences between platforms can get you into a bit of trouble sometimes. Another very common problem area is with disk images, which as far as I know, are mostly just used on Macs. They are a way of sending compressed data from one place to another. On Windows, people usually use the ZIP format to do this; disk images on the Mac work differently, thus causing the confusion.

In this post, I am using the disk image for a freeware game called "Quinn," essentially a nice version of the Tetris game.

When a disk image arrives on your computer, it looks like a picture of a hard drive on a piece of paper, as pictured above and to the right. It has the filename extension ".dmg" (for "disk image"). This is the compressed version. If you've seen ".bin" and ".cue" files on a PC, this is their equivalent. It is, essentially, the image of a physical storage device. It's the same as taking a CD or DVD and copying it precisely on your hard drive, for example; that's why such files are often used to make copies of such disks. But it does not have to be a copy of an actual physical disk; that's merely one use.

When you open up the disk image file by double-clicking on it, another icon appears on your desktop, which usually appears like the image at left. It does not matter where the original "dmg" file is on your computer, the new disk icon will appear on your desktop. It also will show up in the left-hand sidebar in any open Finder window, along with your other physical disks (see right). At this point, it is acting exactly as if you attached a hard disk or popped in a DVD; it does not act like a file on your computer, but like an attached drive. Note that you can see both the "dmg" file and the virtual disk which came from it at the same time.

What is important to remember is that the virtual disk is not really "on" your computer; it is a temporary representation of that original "dmg" file. You can test this by throwing the original "dmg" file into the Trash while the virtual disk is open, and then trying to empty the trash; you'll get an error message (below, right) telling you that the file is still in use.

Usually, when you open up a disk image, the contents of the image will open up in a new Finder window, as pictured below (in the case of Quinn). There are a couple of things to note about this window. First of all, there's no toolbar or left-hand sidebar; the window is optimized to make it appear slicker. Personally, this annoys me, but there's a simple solution: click the "toolbar button" which is located at the top right of any Mac window (see small image below right); your toolbar and sidebar will reappear (or disappear, if they were already visible).

However, you don't have to bring the sidebar back; it's just convenient sometimes, as I'll explain below. Instead, for now, just look at the window with the disk image contents below:

This is an example of a well-designed disk image window. The reason: it's an application, and they kindly gave you a shortcut (or "alias") to your Applications folder. Here, it's dead simple: drop the icon into the shortcut for the Apps folder. A copy of the program is made to your computer. Bam, you're done. Sometimes they don't give you the shortcut, and that really annoys me. Why? Because when you open a disk image, the sidebar is missing, and the sidebar is usually where your Application folder can be easily accessed from. Without a sidebar, and without a shortcut to the Applications folder, it becomes harder and less intuitive as to where to put the file in the right place (hint: use the toolbar button to show the sidebar, then drop the icon into the Applications folder visible in the toolbar).

There's another reason why not including an Application folder shortcut can confuse people: they assume that the virtual image is actually "on" their computer, and so they just run the app from the disk image directly, without copying it onto their computer. This will work, but only in a limited fashion. For example, I've seen people drag-and-drop the virtual app from the virtual image onto their Dock. This is fine, so long as the disk image is open. But then they shut down and restart their computer--at which point the virtual disk is discarded. When they then click the Dock icon for the app, the original "dmg" file is re-opened automatically, the virtual image is brought back up, and the program runs again. Sloppy, but it still works. Trouble ensues when the user later trashes the "dmg" file, thus erasing the program--and it surprised when the Dock icon can no longer find the program. Oops.

You might think now that disk images are more trouble than they're worth, because of this long and complex explanation; however, the process is actually very simple. When you get a disk image, double-click it to open the virtual disk. Then copy the contents to the location on your computer where they are needed (usually the Applications folder, but sometimes elsewhere). Then just eject the virtual disk and erase the "dmg" file (unless you wish to archive it somewhere). That's all.

Small detail: there are three ways to eject the virtual disk. One: click the virtual disk icon on the desktop and type "Command-E" (which also will eject any other kind of disk which is selected). Two: go to the sidebar in an open Finder window and click the "eject" icon to the right of the disk's icon. Or three: drag the virtual disk icon from the Desktop to the Trash--which, as you'll note, transforms into a metallic "Eject" icon in this instance.

As soon as you're used to disk images, you'll find that they can be as convenient and as easy to use as "zip" files, or any other form of compressed data. But they also have another function: using Apple's "Disk Utility" program (in the "Utilities" folder, which is in the "Applications" folder), you can save a disk image onto a CD or DVD. That is, the CD or DVD will become an exact physical copy of the virtual disk image as stored in the "dmg" file. This is also a way to copy a CD or DVD--you can use "Disk Utility" (or better, an app like the freeware "Burn") to make a "dmg" copy of a disc, then make new discs by impressing that "dmg" file onto them.

Ka-Ching

Hard to get used to this. When I bought Apple stock, it just happened to be at a peak. For a whole six months, the stock did not go above that peak without soon falling back down; in fact, if often fell below, sometimes well below. But then, in April, things changed after the 2Q earnings report, and then buzz about the iPhone release started working up. After the iPhone was released, a lot of good news on sales, profit margins, and so forth shot the price up significantly on some days. So what's hard to get used to is, after six months of disappointment (to the point where I couldn't read the stock news very easily), I find myself waking up to news that the stock I bought is up another thousand dollars overnight.

Now my only regret is that I did not put fully half of my savings into the stock, like I wanted to at first. When I floated this idea to family and friends, I was strongly warned not to go there. They even warned me against putting in as much as I did. And as far as general advice goes, it was excellent advice. The thing is, I have never invested money in a specific stock before; I have never had enough confidence to. But with Apple, it was something very different, and much stronger. They say that when you invest, it should be in a company that you have strong confidence in, but also one whose product you very much approve of. Well, if you read this blog, you'll know that all of that applies here, in spades. And had I figured this out four years ago, I could have gotten in on the ground floor--Apple stock was at $7 a share in April 2003, and that was before a stock split in 2005. Had you invested $12,000 in the stock in April 2003, you'd have a cool half million by now. Yikes! If anybody out there invents a time machine, let me know!

It appears that the stock may yet have far to go. There are naysayers, and they may be right. Or not. One analyst put a sell on Apple in May, when the stock was at $111; the stock is now at $143.75. Today, Piper Jaffray put a new estimate on the stock's ceiling, to $205, predicting a "tidal wave" for Apple by 2009. Of course, a serious defect could be found in the iPhone tomorrow, sending the stock plummeting, or a thousand other things could happen. I'm simply betting the other way. So far, so good, but that's what the guy said as he passed the 30th floor on his way down to the pavement. Who knows?

So That's Why the Stock Price Jumped

My father mentioned the price of Apple stock in a Skype call we had this morning, but at the time I thought he just meant the general upwards trend lately. However, when I checked the day's results, Apple stock was up $3.66, or 2.73%. It's nice to open up your account and see that you made a thousand bucks overnight. I am guessing that the jump was the result of this report from USA Today:

Early iPhone owners are overwhelmingly happy with their devices, a survey out Friday says, and Apple and AT&T are luring customers from rivals as a result.

In one of the first such studies, 90% of 200 owners said they were "extremely" or "very" satisfied with their phone. And 85% said they are "extremely" or "very" likely to recommend the device to others, says the online survey conducted and paid for by market researcher Interpret of Santa Monica, Calif. The firm surveyed 1,000 cellphone users July 6-10.

The findings are "pretty much off the charts," says Jason Kramer, Interpret's chief strategy officer. ...

Apple still faces challenges. The high cost of the two iPhone models — $499 and $599 — ranks as the No. 1 reason consumers interested in the device did not buy one, the survey says. Those consumers said they would pay an average of, at most, $180.

Owners said there's room for improvement. At the top of their wish list: longer battery life, faster Internet speed and more internal memory. Other factors, including the lack of a physical keyboard, were well down on their lists.

The iPhone is extending Apple's reach, the survey says. Three of 10 buyers were first-time Apple customers. For 40%, iPhone is their first iPod.

This bodes extremely well for the iPhone and for Apple. Word of mouth is very important, and a lot of people may have been holding back, waiting for the reactions of the early buyers. It suggests that perceived problems are not nearly as bad as people expected--especially the keyboard--and Apple's objectives of selling ten million units by the end of 2008 may be exceeded, even as a domestic figure.

The halo effect is also an issue, as more people will get a dose of Apple's design style. Just yesterday at work, a staff member said that he's probably going to buy a Mac soon, and that is based upon the iPod he bought recently; he loves it so much, he figures Macs should also be a welcome change from PCs. I didn't have the heart to tell him that he may have bought his iPod just a tad too soon, with full-screen multi-touch models being a likely upcoming release. Still, that kind of story, though anecdotal, is telling. If someone really likes a product from a company, they may well buy more, different products from the same company. And early iPhone news seems to indicate that Apple sales may increase even more than they have in the recent past--and they have already been increasing computer sales faster than anyone else out there.

There could even be a bit of a boost from what Fake Steve Jobs might call the "skank" factor--already Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan have been photographed carrying iPhones (almost a bit too conspicuously, if you ask me). While FSJ rants about how there was supposed to be a policy to keep such people from buying an iPhone, it probably won't hurt sales among the younger crowds.

Zune vs. iPhone

After seven and a half months, it is estimated by Microsoft that they have sold a million Zunes. Of course, that figure is very sketchy and unsupported. It is based upon an interview with Microsoft's Entertainment and Devices Division president, Robbie Bach, where he was misquoted as saying that they had sold "a little over a million Zunes" by the end of May, when he really said that they expected to have sold over a million Zunes by the end of June. Furthermore, nobody is sure that they have actually sold that many to consumers, as Microsoft has the tendency to report shipments to retailers as actual sales to inflate their figures. (And, as a side note, Bach has recently been implicated in an insider trading scandal.)

While the Zune's release was rather uneventful (ten units sold at a San Francisco store was "better than expected"), the iPhone's release was manic, crazed, crowded and furious. After ten days, it is reported that nearly a million iPhones have been sold; by the two-week mark, the number of one million is perfectly reasonable to expect.

Which means that Apple reached the one-million mark in just 1/16th the time it took for the Zune to do the same thing. Of course, look at the comparison between them:

True, one is $250 and the other is $500, but Apple has a much bigger profit margin, and more expensive stuff should be harder to sell, right? But really, just in terms of industrial design, there's no comparison here. At right, you can see a side view of the iPhone. I was trying to get a similar image of the Zune to show a comparison (the iPhone is 0.46" thick, the Zune 0.58"), but I could not find a single image on the web of a Zune in full side profile. I soon figured it out: it's basically just a rectangle from that view. Oh, there's the line of a seam breaking it up, but from the side, the Zune is utterly nondescript. Which explains why nobody posts images of it that way.

The Zune is set for an upgrade--but then again, according to reports, so is the iPhone. And while the Zune can get software upgrades like the iPhone (both may get their wireless capabilities upgraded), the iPhone is far more upgradeable without having to buy a new unit, as it relies on the touch screen for the full interface.

Of course, we're comparing apples and oranges here a bit--the Zune is only a media player, and the iPhone is a media player, web browser, email/schedule/address book client, camera/photo viewer, and a telephone. But what happens when the first widescreen iPod comes out? It's been rumored to happen sometime this year, possibly in August, but probably later. When you get a full-screen, multi-touch iPod with the 3.5-inch 480x320 display? People have gushed about the Zune's "big" display, which is a 3-inch 320x240 screen--but that's half the resolution of the iPhone at almost the same size. If the new iPod will have Bluetooth and WiFi like it's cousin iPhone, then there won't be much to give the Zune any advantage.

Seriously, I don't know who is buying Zunes right now. If it were an independent company instead of a part of Microsoft, I don't see it's shares going up anytime soon. But then, I should add the disclaimer that I own a chunk of Apple stock, so I may be biased.

iPhone Madness

Wow. Things are going pretty well. Both Apple Stores and AT&T outlets have almost sold out of iPhones after four days, selling as many as 700,000, and Apple stock, I suppose on this news, shot up about $6 yesterday. Probably the stock didn't go up the first few days because there was worry about how people would react once they got the iPhones. But reportedly, the consumer reaction is very good--and raving reviews continue to come in, like this one from Business Week. [Update: reports are that the stock rose on reports that Apple is getting a 55% profit margin off of iPhones.]

Any viewers of this blog get one?

iPhone Comments

I've restrained from commenting on the iPhone recently for two reasons: there is already iPhone overload in the media, and I've been too busy to comment on it anyway. But overall, the iPhone news is very good. Almost all the reviews say that the iPhone lives up to the hype--which is pretty damned impressive, because the hype for the iPhone has been bigger than just about anything else in recent memory. Those are pretty high standards.

In fact, praise for the iPhone is so universal and the hype so positive that a lot of people seem determined to strain out criticisms so that they don't look like one of the adoring masses. To be certain, the iPhone has bad points, but some people go a bit far. Take this review from the Seattle Times, which was at the top of the iPhone category on Google News. The reviewer lists five likes and dislikes. But the content of the review is telling, both that the good is better than the bad, and that a good writer doesn't lock himself into round numbers for the sake of round numbers.

Like most reviewers, this guy likes are the touchscreen interface and the look and feel of the device, and then he goes on to the more personal likes of an iPod with a speaker and the interface for dealing with photographs. He winds up, tritely, with a universal observation, that the iPhone will spur other cell phones to have similarly cool features.

In his dislikes column, he covers the first point that everyone brings up: the EDGE network. This is the bane of the early adopter; you can expect iPhones in 2008 to be 3G (Japan and Europe are likely waiting for that); whether this is an upgradable feature is what will determine how many ticked-off early adopters there will be. And it's a legitimate gripe, as are the points that the web browser can't handle Flash (a plus in my book) or WMV as well as other media types. But all of these will certainly be corrected over time.

His other dislikes, however, are more telling of a writer trying too hard. He lists durability, battery life, network lock-in and Apple's "smug attitude." Durability first: this guy worries about a $600 phone made of glass. Apparently he didn't read the review by PC World in which they subjected the iPhone to scratch and damage tests, and it performed amazingly. Not only was the touchscreen not marred by being jangled in a baggie with key chains, but it even survived being directly "gouged" with a key. They then tested the iPhone by dropping it on various surfaces from various heights, and again found that it survived multiple drops on concrete sidewalks from ear-level, save for a few mars in the metal bevel. So durability is not as much a problem as the Seattle Times reviewer thinks.

He then winged about battery life, but again, reports have been that the device will hold up to a full day's worth of non-stop use--and let's face it, even on a day of air travel, we wouldn't use such a device every single minute like you would when reviewing it. Also, he didn't mention actually running the battery down or how long it took, so he may not even have put it to realistic, everyday tests. But Wirelessinfo did test it, and found that while it fell short of Apple's claims (such claims are always based upon energy-saving usage methods that no real-world users employ), it was still average, or a bit less than average, for the market--not bad for such a flashy, full-screen device. They were able to get 5 hours of talk time, 10 hours of music play, and 3 hours of web browsing. That means if you mix the three, you can talk for 100 minutes, listen to music for three hours, and browse the web for an hour before the battery runs out. Would you really use your iPhone that much in a normal day? Maybe if you live and die by talking on your mobile endlessly, but most people don't, and if you do, you should get a phone with the longest battery life possible and then another device to do what the iPhone does. Furthermore, CNet reports a quick recharge time, so you probably could just carry a recharging cable in your bag and power up while you're doing something else.

The third gripe is fairly relevant--if you get an iPhone, you are chained to AT&T Cingular. However, isn't this true with a lot of phones? Not all, from what I understand, but I thought this kind of thing was pretty common. This is where I am unfamiliar with the market; someone help me out here.

But the fourth gripe: Apple's "smug attitude"? Come on. If you're reaching for something to complain about, surely you can do better than that. Apple has a damned good reason to be smug, if that is what they are. As for the "better-than-you attitude" and "controlling" behavior, this pretty well describes any company--hell, just look for any quotes by Steve Ballmer and you'll see what I'm talking about.

In short, it seems the iPhone has a lot more good than bad going for it, and the bad will likely be handled over time. Many have pointed out that like the iPod, the first iPhones will look kind of lame in two or three years, just like my third generation iPod is now; at the time, it was great, but now? No color, no video, fat profile? Look for future iPhones that will step into faster 3G networks, can download music independent from a computer, can play lots more media types... so forth and so on. It's version 1.0, people; get over it.

One last note: despite selling half a million iPhones in the first three days and garnering near-universal praise (the criticisms are mostly blended in with the praise but never overpowering it), Apple's stock fell again, albeit slightly. It seems to be like that with Apple stock: rise with the expectation, fall with the release--even when the release lives up to the expectation. Go figure. Still, my shares are 30% higher today than when I bought them eight months ago, so I'm not complaining.

Vista Has Caught Up with Leopard? Ummm...

In my post on Leopard yesterday, I noted that the idea of hiding the "top secret" Leopard features from Microsoft seemed a bit silly because the new ones Jobs introduced seemed minimally similar to some Windows details from Windows 98, XP, and Vista. Specifically, I noted the transparent menu bar, basing a window viewing paradigm on a pre-existing media program, and document previews in icons. I am fairly sure, however, that I conveyed the limited way that these features resembled what was in Vista. Not that Vista had these features already, but that there were shades of the features in Windows; not that Apple was copying Vista, but that Microsoft already knew about a few of the design elements and had integrated them in Vista to a different or lesser degree.

Well, some person with a tech blog at ZDNet had the same idea, but combined a certain cluelessness about OS technology and ignorance about when things have been released, and combined that with the act of taking a weak idea to a ridiculous extreme. Essentially they are suggesting that Leopard is both copying and playing catch-up with Vista.

I know it's kind of like picking a fight with someone you know you can wipe the floor with, but (a) I felt there was enough of a connection with what I wrote yesterday that I should clarify my own take on the idea, (b) this person has a blog on a noted tech site and many will take her seriously, and (c) it's fun.

Here are the ten points Foley, the ZDNet blogger, made about how Vista is "pretty darn up-to-date" with Leopard:

1. New Leopard Desktop: Not a whole lot different from Vista’s Aero and Sidebar.

First of all, she seems to be comparing the Dock with Sidebar. What would a car aficionado say about someone who can't tell a steering wheel from a tire writing car reviews?

She is apparently basing the comparison with Aero wholly on the fact that Apple's menu bar is semi-transparent, which Vista window frames are also. This is like saying that a beat-up old Chevy is like a new, top-of-the-line Mercedes because they both have the same color paint. As I noted, the eye-candy transparency is irrelevant. The Dock is what puts the Mac's OS way ahead of Vista, and though most of the new Dock features are also eye candy, there is nothing in Vista to match the functionality of the Dock. Stacks may be simply a nicer way of viewing a pop-up menu from the Dock, but I don't see Vista giving you the same functionality that Mac users take for granted in this years-old technology.

In essence, Foley only noted that the new additions to the Desktop kind of reminded her of the style used in Vista, while ignoring (or being ignorant of) the pre-existing technology in OS X that the Mac has had for years but Vista still hasn't caught up with.

2. New Finder: Many of the same capabilities as the integrated “Instant Search” in Vista (the subsystem that Google is trying to get the Department of Justice to rule as being anti-competitive). The new Leopard Coverflow viewing capability looked almost identical to Vista’s Flip 3D to me.

Ummm... where do you start? First of all, Spotlight has been in the Mac OS since Tiger came out more than two years ago; Vista was a latecomer to the game, and even copied Apple's graphic layout for the feature, right down to the search icon.

CoverFlow is a pre-existing iTunes feature, and is similar to Flip 3D like an accelerator is to a brake. Flip 3D is a poor copy of Apple's Exposé; it is unavailable in the Vista Basic versions, only shows windows, not files, and does so in a much more limited way. CoverFlow is a file-viewing paradigm created more than two years ago by a Mac developer and was purchased by Apple and implemented into iTunes four months before the public release of Vista.

3. QuickLook: Live file previews — just like the thumbnail preview capability available in Vista.

As I noted in my post yesterday, QuickLook leaves Vista far behind. Both Mac and Windows have been offering file previews in icon views in limited fashions for a few years now. For a while, Windows had a slight advantage because XP's icons would preview some text documents and web pages in addition to the image and movie icon views that both operating systems were able to preview. But that was the limit for anyone--a small icon preview. In fact, the Mac OS had the upper hand on Windows in one respect for a while because it was able to preview movies in real-time without opening an app, something Windows caught up with in Vista a few years after the Mac had it.

QuickLook leaves both Vista and Tiger in the dust. Not only has it enhanced icon previews which beat out Vista, but it allows you to view almost any document full-size and viewing all pages and slides without opening the app that created it first. Vista can't even come close to that.

4. 64-bitness: Leopard is the first 64-bit only version of a desktop client. Vista comes in 32-bit and 64-bit varieties. And most expect Windows Seven will still be available in 32-bit flavors. Until 32-bit machines go away, it seems like a good idea to offer 32-bit operating systems.

Foley apparently wasn't listening when Jobs made the crystal clear point that Leopard integrated both 64-bit and 32-bit into the same OS. Hell, Jobs even did a demo showing both kinds of apps running side by side in Leopard. Foley must have been out buying nachos at the time, or else was snoozing during the demo, and later jumped to conclusions about the "64" icons she saw.

Here, Leopard is clearly superior. Just like Leopard doesn't have differently-priced "Home," "Business," "Premium," "Enterprise," or "Ultimate" versions, it also does not have separate 32- and 64-bit versions. Everything comes in one package for one price--and that price is about equal to the lowest-priced upgrade version of Vista.

5. Core animation: Not sure what the Vista comparison is here. The demo reminded me of Microsoft Max photo-sharing application. The WWDC developers attending the Jobs keynote didn’t seem wowed with this functionality.

It might help to have even the slightest clue about what Core Animation actually is. Foley is comparing a graphic engine built in to the OS with some photo-viewing app that she thought resembled the sample program that Jobs ran to highlight what Core Animation could do. How many times can I repeat the word "clueless" before it gets too repetitive?

6. Boot Camp. You can run Vista on your Mac. Apple showed Vista running Solitaire in its WWDC demo. But I bet those downloading the 2.5 million copies of Boot Camp available since last year are running a lot of other Windows business apps and games.

Okay... so Foley is saying that Windows Vista has caught up with the Mac OS because Mac users are able to use tons of Windows apps? What exactly is Foley trying to prove here about Vista and Leopard? She apparently is bothered that Jobs took a jab at Windows by suggesting, jokingly, that Solitaire is a big reason why you might want to run Windows on your Mac. So first, can't Foley recognize a joke when she sees one, and second, how does the Mac's ability to run Windows apps make Vista seem "up-to-date" with Leopard?

7. Spaces: A feature allowing users to group applications into separate spaces. I haven’t seen anything like in in Vista, but the audience didn’t seem overly impressed by it.

Foley did note that this was only her second Mac keynote, and the other was in 2002. OS apparently she was not aware that Spaces was introduced ten months ago, which is why nobody was wowed by it--they saw it long ago, and as developers, have been using it for about as long. If Bill Gates demoed Internet Explorer 7 to a Windows crowd today, he'd get the same reaction.

But the interesting point here, as with point #6, is that Foley seem to have forgotten her thesis statement, that Leopard looks like Vista. Saying that a new feature in Leopard, which does not exist in Vista, did not excite the crowd does not support that thesis very well.

In any case, Spaces did wow the crowd 10 months ago, is a great feature, and does not exist in Vista.

And by the way, Foley writes a tech blog which focuses on Microsoft on a tech web site, and she says stuff like "I haven’t seen anything like in in Vista" as if it might be in Vista but she hasn't found it yet?

8. Dashboard with widgets. Isn’t this like the Vista Sidebar with gadgets?

Oy.

Okay. First off, Dashboard, like Spotlight, has been around for two years--Sidebar with Gadgets is a shameless copy of Dashboard with widgets. (Okay, granted, Dashboard is a shameless rip-off of Konfabulator. Still.) Second, Jobs was showing how you can make your own widgets either dead-simple with Web Clip, or more professionally but still very easily with DashCode. As far as I know, Sidebar gadget development is still only something that professionals can handle, while it looks like non-programmers like me would be able to handle DashCode--and anybody's grandmother could probably master Web Clip in a few minute's time.

9. iChat gets a bunch of fun add-ons (photo-booth effects, backrops, etc.) to make it a more fully-featured videoconferencing product. The “iChat Theater” capability Jobs showed off reminded me of Vista’s Meeting Space and/or the new Microsoft “Shared View” (code-named “Tahiti”) document-sharing/conferencing subsystems.

iChat is an app that primarily is for consumers, not business people, but integrates the features Foley is talking about easily into one app--whereas Microsoft seems to have it partitioned out into several different apps. Microsoft does have an advantage as far as making it business-friendly, but not in terms of making it user-friendly. I checked out the "SharedView" app, and while it allows for collaborative document sharing, it is still an early beta and does not as yet include integrated audio or even text chat features. For that, you have to use a separate chat program or pick up a telephone. So even including separate Windows apps not integrated into the OS, Vista is not exactly "caught up" with Leopard.

10. Time Machine automatic backup. Vista has built-in automatic backup (Volume Shadow Copy). It doesn’t look anywhere near as cool as Time Machine. But it seems to provide a lot of the same functionality.

But that's the difference, isn't it--the Mac OS, even when it provides the same basic feature, makes it much more easy and fun to use. Both a beat-up old Chevy and a new, top-of-the-line Mercedes Benz will get you from home to the mall and back--but which one would you want to drive?

Seriously, ZDNet out to review whether or not they want someone who does such shoddy reporting to have a blog on their site. It's pretty embarrassing.

Leopard Suffers from High Expectations and the Wait

While the new Leopard seems to be a snazzy new OS with some very cool features, it unfortunately suffers from overly high expectations, and Steve Jobs can only blame himself for that. When he announced that there were "top secret" features that had to be hidden from Microsoft so they wouldn't copy them too early, people took him at his word, and expectations were sky-high. Windows apps run native on the Mac OS! A brand-new, world-changing windowless interface! A completely reworked Finder with 3-D animation everywhere! Something new and mysterious and unexpected and amazing!

Ummm... well, not quite.

The thing is, Leopard is cool. Stacks, QuickLook, Coverflow--the Finder has been reworked. But these don't really seem like "top secret" features that had to be hidden for ten months so that Redmond wouldn't copy them. A lot of it was in the name Jobs used last year--"top secret." If he'd just called them "extra features," then expectations would not have been quite so high. The long wait has also been partly to blame, and ironically, the early preview last year spread out the news a bit too thinly. Had all these features been released at once, it would have been as satisfying as any Mac OS release, maybe even more.

But here's another bit of irony: while most of the "top secret" features that needed to be hidden from Microsoft are indeed new... enough of them are reminiscent enough of existing Windows features as to actually be a bit embarrassing in light of their having to be hidden so Microsoft wouldn't copy Leopard. Ulp.

In any case, the "top secret" feature was... a new Finder. A lot of people expected that. Let's take a look at the details. Quite a bit is eye candy, but most of that is as irrelevant as the new eye candy in Vista. There's the new Dock with the "floor" which reflects not only the icons in the Dock, but even windows that get close to it. There's a semi-transparent Menu Bar which in itself is reminiscent of Vista's semi-transparent window frames. This is not so exciting.

The interesting stuff comes with functionality, and that has been improved. Interestingly, just like Windows 98 integrated Internet Explorer into the OS and made its windows act like web pages, Apple has done a similar thing, but this time iTunes was the model. The windows in Leopard not only sport the same non-brushed-metal look-and-feel, but the sidebar has changed to fit the iTunes theme--and even CoverFlow is now integrated. You know, that new iTunes thing which makes album covers flip by in 3-D.

I was never excited by CoverFlow because it's so hard to get album cover art for all of my archived music, so most of my "covers" are just blank. But that should be different in Leopard's Finder, mostly because of another new Finder feature: QuickLook.

QuickLook is another feature which is a bit reminiscent of Windows. In Windows XP, a lot more documents were available as previews in icon form than were available on the Mac. Web pages are one example; they would render in miniature in the icon in XP, something that Tiger would not do. The Mac could preview images and movies, but not much else. So XP was ahead in that minor respect... and now the Mac is.

Leopard takes document preview to an almost ridiculous extreme in the files it previews. It allows thumbnails of every kind of document... or so we are led to believe. The demo only shows images, PDFs, movies, and iWork & MS Office files. How other icons will render is unclear--for example, how about a FileMaker Pro database file? A DiVX movie? Even a folder? They didn't show what a folder would look like in QuickLook. I suppose that this is stuff we'll hear a lot more about very soon as Leopard will be open to more public scrutiny now... but the omissions worry me a bit.

But thumbnails are just the beginning of QuickLook; the real magic is the ability to preview files, full-size, without opening the application. just select an icon, tap the space bar, and it zooms up to show you not only the top page/image, but the whole file, which you can go through page by page, slide by slide, without having to wait for the app to open. A very nice, time-saving feature to be sure.

Again, the $64,000 question is, will QuickLook work on all documents, most documents, or just a limited set? Can developers update their apps so as to be QuickLook-friendly? What are its limitations? Stay tuned.

Another new Finder feature is one that has been rumored for many, many years: Stacks. And while this is a cool feature, from the demo it looks like the feature is limited to the Dock, which therefore limits the number of stacks you can have before your Dock becomes ridiculously tiny. But in concept, it's a snazzy addition, and even in limited fashion, it could be a bit useful. The idea is essentially a way to get multiple-file QuickLook in the dock, probably not feasible in the boring pop-up menu form used now. Instead, a stack will display either as an arc of icons spread out, or as a dark Spotlight-themed preview pane:

The final big new Finder feature is called "Back to My Mac." This is part of the new shared-folder improvement, which allows the new Finder features to be used even when browsing files on other computers. Hopefully, they've improved on that general feature as well, and when a shared folder is removed before being ejected from the Finder, it won't freeze the OS for two minutes like it does now... hopefully. They also included a "Share Screen" feature in shared computer finding, which presumably allows full remote access of the other Mac, seeing what their screen sees, just like was advertised in the new iChat.

But the "Back to My Mac" feature is kind of nice... if you have the $99/year .Mac service. Yep, another new feature that's exclusive to that annoying paid service, which is loaded up with a myriad of marginal features that almost make it worth it to buy into, but not quite. "Back to My Mac" certainly fits that concept. It is kind of neat, actually--every time your Mac devices get a new IP address to connect to the Internet, that address is updated in your .Mac account so that you can always access your Mac from anywhere you can access .Mac on another Apple computer.

But sometimes features lay in waiting, almost capable and prepared, their potential hidden within established hardware and software... so they can jump out at you without warning. Sort of like what rental movies would be for the Apple TV. The "Back to My Mac" killer feature that I see coming down the road: access your remote files via your iPhone. Your iPhone won't have to have much storage, because you could just connect to the Internet from your iPhone and access your Mac at home, just like that. Now that would tip .Mac into just enough relevancy to be worth a hundred bucks a year.

Another possible hidden potential is one of the unmentioned points of the keynote: iLife and iWork. There is always the potential that the apps in these suites could be made to work with the iPhone, furthering the mobile's productive potential. But since none of these apps were even mentioned in the keynote, we'll have to wait and see.

So of all the new "top secret" Finder features, some are just eye candy (the new Finder appearance, iTunes theme, CoverFlow, Stacks) and some are true productivity-enhancing features (QuickLook, Back to My Mac).

But here's the real question, and one that will hopefully be answered soon: did they really Fix The Fracking Finder? Did all of those little annoyances get worked out? Did "View Options" get consistent? Will window-resize work properly now? Stuff like that? Or did we just get a few new features tacked on without a significant rewrite? We'll have to wait and see--Jobs didn't talk about those things, either because they were not big "features" or because they didn't happen.

A lot of Leopard's new feature set was under the hood as well. Core Animation still looks to be a big draw, and 64-bit compliance is very much improved for better performance.

There is also a lot more to be seen in Leopard that wasn't shown, like how SpotLight has been improved. Do they allow searching by size, or sorting by it? That would be a nice addition. Another thing to wait for in the coming days, unless Apple has still clamped down on reporting users' experiences as much as they have until now.

But the new Finder isn't the only news. Safari also made some headlines, most notably because it's now ported to Windows! How well it will work there, and how it will stack up to FireFox and Explorer 7 is another question. It's now up to version 3 (beta), and has many of the new features touted last year, including text field resizing, re-arrangeable tabs, and inline search. It now claims to load things twice as fast, and it does seem to be true.

Safari 3 for Windows may also be a nod to the iPhone being released, as the iPhone uses Safari a lot--not just for browsing, but also for application support. In fact, while Apple opened up the iPhone to 3rd-party apps, they hedged on the security issue by making them run through Safari; the Windows release of the software may be tied into that issue, as well as being an attempt to challenge Explorer in the browser war. With interoperability between Apple apps and its cool new accessories, Apple could gain quite a bit of ground.

However--and this is a really big "however"--I will probably be uninstalling the beta version 3 I grabbed this morning, and going back to version 2 in a few days, despite how much I really love the tabs and the text field thing. Why? PithHelmet is disabled. That's a huge thing for me. Once I installed version 3, I realized how much I've been taking PithHelmet for granted, as all of those goddamned annoying little ads and flashing images came back with a vengeance. I never realized how much they had proliferated, since PithHelmet had been blocking them so faithfully.

So until PithHelmet version 3 comes out, I'm sticking with Safari 2. But I will definitely see to it that Safari is installed on the school's XP computers, and see how the students like it--not to mention that I'll check out for myself how it performs on Windows.

Other Leopard news: Fast-switching in Boot Camp. Instead of fully rebooting between the two systems, Boot Camp now allows for "Safe Sleep" on the Mac and "Hibernation" on Windows--essentially saved states of the systems which allow for leaving apps running and windows open, and switching more quickly between the two. Not the Parallels-killer some were expecting, but a nice improvement for a free OS component.

Other than that, most of the features are already known: Spaces, Time Machine, and upgrades to Mail, iChat, iCal, Automator, and a few more.

One thing that was not made fully clear: some are reporting that we now know Leopard's "full" feature set... while others hint that other features still remain hidden. So what's up? I don't think that Jobs even mentioned the whole "top secret" thing... and although it's a long shot even to the point of being a pipe dream almost, is it possible that we have yet to see all that Leopard offers? Will there be more?

Two notable omissions from today's keynote: iLife and iWork. There are always upgrades to those with a new OS, and yet not a peep from Jobs about these two. That so far is the biggest hint that there is more to come, unless Apple decides to release the new versions of both suites at a later time, like at the Macworld '08 in January next year.

Or possibly were there features that Apple hoped to include but couldn't make it to the final cut? Maybe Apple suffered from the same problems Microsoft saw in Vista, having to cut what they wanted to add, but Apple benefitted from its secrecy. Maybe Apple is unsure how the iPhone's keyboard will work with the general public, or there might be other issues they could make work quite yet that would hold back the release of these apps. We may not know, at least not for some time.

But as we see it now, Leopard will, without question, be worthy of the $130 price tag, and will definitely be worth the $70 price tag I'll get as an educator.

Apple TV Movie Rentals

And the other shoe drops... if the rumors are true, that is. Since the Apple TV was rumored, I figured that it was useless just as-is--after all, you can string an RCA cable from your computer to your TV and get the same effect. I had trouble believing that people would pay $300 or $400 for what you could accomplish with a $20 converter and a $10 cable.

However, in a discussion with my family, the idea of movie rentals came up, and suddenly the Apple TV made sense. Without the ability to either record TV like a TiVo or rent movies, the Apple TV just wouldn't be worth it. But as a DRM box to hold movies and videos, the Apple TV could be enough of a nod to piracy-nervous studios but DRM-transparent enough so that consumers won't mind.

And now it looks like that early guess was spot-on: Apple is reportedly in talks with the studios about securing their movie content for rental purposes. The reported deal would allow for a 30-day rental for $2.99, and would allow the movie to be viewed on an iPod or iPhone as well as your computer and TV. That sounds pretty good to me; though I never considered buying an Apple TV before, this could tip the balance for me.

It might even have a bonus feature for me if it works the same way as the iTunes music store: I live in Japan, but can use the U.S. music store if my credit card delivers to a U.S. address. If the same is true with the movie rental service, then I could see movies in Japan sometimes even before they get to movie theaters here. That would be nice for me, better if the films had the option of subtitles for Sachi (she does well even with English subs).

This is the killer app that Apple needs to get their media box off the ground. The timing of the rumor's release is a bit suspicious--it could be something that Jobs will uncover tomorrow at the WWDC... or not.

In the meantime, there is a German site claiming to have a complete outline of tomorrow's keynote (English translation here). Having read it, I am pretty sure that it's a fake. It is essentially a rehash of all the rumors that have been flying around for several months now, with a few extra products that make little sense. In any case, the real keynote begins in about 12 hours, so we'll know soon enough.

The iPhone Keyboard

One of the chief criticisms that has been going around about the iPhone is the usability of the keyboard. One recent such rant was made by John Dvorak, who claimed that an unnamed "industry insider" says that the keyboard is a "disaster," and that "people are going to return the phone in droves," as many as 20% of buyers. But then, Dvorak is a self-proclaimed Apple troll, the Mac world's Ann Coulter. Still, others have express concern over how hard it might be to use the keyboard. A few images of the keyboard below, and a demo of how it is used from Apple's web site.

The interface is pretty simple: you have a virtual keyboard on the screen which you can use with one or two fingers. As your finger moves over the keyboard, the selected key grows a tab that appears above your finger, so that the view of the letter is not occluded by your finger. (Apple might want to think about adding transparency to the pop-up so that the letters behind it are not constantly masked, causing trouble for us hunt-and-peck types.) There is a shift key and a numbers-symbols key to allow for non-lowercase letters; the numbers-symbol button replaces the regular keyboard with all ten digits on top and thirteen common punctuation marks and symbols below.

Presumably, hitting the shift key here will allow access to other symbols, but I can't find a demo which shows that.

The iPhone keypad also has error correction for hasty mistyping (how well it works stands to be seen), and an auto-capitalization feature when you enter a new text field or hit the "return" button. The error-correction feature might also double as an auto-complete, but I'm not sure on that one.

So: with all of that established, how hard will the keyboard be to use? Of course, it's almost impossible to tell until you get your hands on one and try, and then there's the fact that everyone is different and so people will disagree to a certain extent. But from what I can see, I have the feeling that, while it might take a little getting used to, it should be a good system. I was put off originally by the pop-up tab for the key about to be pressed, but upon reflection I think it's a positive; although it would obscure the two keys above the key to be pressed, it serves to un-obscure the key to be pressed and as such acts as a visual confirmation that you've got the right key. The auto-correct would seem to handle whatever errors are made anyway. I could imagine becoming pretty adept at it, typing not as fast as a standard keyboard, but still very quickly.

But here's the real test: how does it compare with other real-world options? When you compare this to the standard numeric-keypad system, there's simply no contest. For example, using the number keypad, the "7" key is "PQRS," with lowercase and uppercase either rotating (p-q-r-s-P-Q-R-S) or using a shift key; in such a case, typing a capital "S" requires either five or eight keystrokes--which is why I never enter text into my cell phone unless I am absolutely forced to. I know that one could get adept at it, but it still requires a lot of extra effort even if you do. Most cell phones that I have seen have this keypad, and I cannot imagine anyone actually preferring it over the iPhone's keypad, unless they had some sort of unusual and highly annoying difficulty with the iPhone.

An additional problem with the alpha-numeric keypads is that one sometimes must manually advance the cursor. For example, if you want to type the word "cab," all the letters are on the same key. That means that you have to punch three (or six) times to get the "C," and then you must press the cursor-advance key to get the "A" because pressing the same key again would just be considered an attempt to repair the original entry.

Then there are the alternatives to the standard keypad, which offer more buttons while still keeping with the original size constraints of the normal cell phone. Take these two for example:

The one on the left (these links are to web pages where I got the images from) is an intermediate solution, reducing the number of letters per key to two instead of three, and adding the shift key. This helps a bit, but still is not as good as the iPhone. While it reduces the number of steps from the normal keypad, it does not do it as well as the iPhone does as there are still more strokes. Also, the phone has compromised a bit in making the keys a bit smaller and the phone a bit wider. I can't see this as a preferable system, again unless a user has some unusual problem with the touch screen. This keypad also still suffers from the same-key-different-letter problem, requiring an advance-the-cursor keystroke sometimes.

The one on the right adds an almost piano-like white-and-black-keys solution, in alphabetical order. This could be better or worse than the standard keypad, depending. The buttons are tiny, and are laid out in a nonstandard fashion; though alphabetical, it is something a person would have to get used to--which means that it is no better than the iPhone in that respect. I really can't see this as outclassing the iPhone, either.

Then we get the Blackberry solution:

I think this is what people are thinking about when they complain about the iPhone's keypad. Instead of comparing the iPhone to most cell phones, they instead compare its keyboard to the best keyboard on the market, while ignoring other considerations. The Blackberry keyboard would seem to beat out the iPhone's, again except for unusual situations or personal preference. The problem is that the Blackberry has other faults, chiefly the size and appearance, something a full comparison would have to take into consideration. Comparing the form factor between the two alone would, for most people, leave the iPhone the clear winner. So, if we take all aspects--including browsing abilities, music playing, photo taking and viewing, email and texting, syncing with a computer, menu interface--everything--into account, does the Blackberry still win? Again, it comes down to personal preference.

There are also slide-out keyboards, and maybe some people prefer them--but they would not only make the phone thicker and cause other design problems, but they would be an additional moving part, something extra that could get broken more easily.

However, the iPhone could possibly cancel out slide-out keyboards' and the Blackberry's chief advantage--the keypad--with a simple software fix: use its ability to change from portrait to landscape via motion sensor, and apply it to the keyboard, as this Photoshopper demonstrates:

Or maybe not--maybe some people prefer the tactile response of buttons. Maybe the landscape margins on the iPhone would be considered too much of an obstruction. But it could work.

Additionally, the iPhone, as a touch-screen phone, has the unique advantage of being software-reconfigurable. What if you, like my brother, is a Dvorak-keyboard (not that Dvorak) user? An iPhone could, potentially, make that switch easily, as it uses the Mac OS which can make that change as well, or it could change the keyboard language (e.g., Greek, Russian, etc.).

All in all, I think the pre-release negativity about the iPhone's text keypad is premature and probably misplaced. Maybe it's just the easiest thing for Apple critics to kvetch about, one of the only known things aside from the price that the device could be criticized about, ergo the attention to it.

We'll see in a few week's time anyway, won't we?

T-minus Six Days

That's how long before Jobs' keynote at the WWDC, and that's how long before we find out, at long last, what the hell those "top secret" features are. On Apple's 30th anniversary, and ten months since Jobs' cryptic remarks about hiding secret features from Microsoft, and after delaying Leopard supposedly to concentrate on the iPhone, Leopard had damn well better have some fantastic stuff waiting in the wings. If not, then Apple's stock will decline by a lot in a single day--not a disaster, as the stock has risen dramatically over the past month and may even need correction, and then the iPhone release may help recoup whatever losses could come.

However, I am guessing that there are some actual "top secret" features that may actually be at least somewhat spectacular. That's the general expectation. The question is, what will those features be?

The most-expected feature will be Core Animation utilized in the OS at a fundamental level--that is, animation available everywhere. Knowing Apple, that would not mean that your Mac would suddenly become the same flashing, graphically shouting morass that Flash ads turn your favorite web sites into. It would mean classy, subtle, smooth, real-world-imitating animation, animation like we see on the iPhone. In fact, many believe that the new animation features we see on the iPhone are part of what's coming to Leopard. One example is how scrolling works--you scroll, and gravity seems to take over; when the end of the scroll is reached, there's a small rebound. Little touches like that which make the interface appear more lifelike.

However, animation alone seems a bit lame for such a huge build-up, no matter how well-executed it may be. But animation could be one part of something that Apple has been urged to do for some time now: FTFF, or "Fix the Fracking Finder," paraphrased. This could be as subtle as fixing the dozens of small but annoying glitches in the Finder interface, or as overt as changing the interface style completely, as was supposed in a theory that Apple was switching to a "windowless" interface.

A second theory has resurfaced recently, one that personally I don't think is likely: that Apple is readying the Mac so it will be able to run Windows applications without installing Windows. While this is certainly possible, it is unlikely for at least a few good reasons. First, this would require massive changes to the OS, adopting all manner of Windows APIs, adopting clashing styles of the two OS's to work together smoothly within a single interface, and then dealing with more criticism than praise when not everything works well, at least at first. Not to mention that Apple's workload would increase as they would have to keep updating this feature whenever changes in Windows or its application set evolved. Unless Apple has, in complete secrecy, pulled off a programming miracle, I doubt that this is really going to happen.

Second, Apple has benefitted well from Parallels and has voiced public support for them, even to the point of saying that they do not plan to supplant it. Parallels could well be devastated by an announcement that Leopard could do its job instead, and without the cost of either buying Parallels or Windows XP. Of course, Apple has screwed developers before by incorporating their software's abilities into the OS (Dashboard stealing Konfabulator's gig was one such example), and Apple has in the past denied things that turned out to be true (such as building Mac OS X versions that run on Intel). But this instance would almost be going too far, as Parallels has so far been a major boost to the Mac since the Intel switch.

Third, this is not a rumor based upon observations or leaks--it is pure speculation, and that tends not to bear out too well in the end.

On the other hand, there was that very odd rumor that Apple delayed Leopard to make it compatible with Vista; making the Mac run Windows apps natively could have mutated into that chestnut. And there is no denying that, with all the flaws that would be inherent in such a revolutionary change, such a feature would in a single stroke shoot down one of the biggest criticisms of the Mac platform--specifically, that it doesn't run "most software." (As if anyone ever criticized Windows for not running software made for other platforms.)

And then there is the possibility that Apple has something completely different, completely unknown up its sleeve. They certainly have kept the lid on tight concerning this story. Less than a week from the event, and no clear idea exists as to what is coming up. Any way you look at it, it should be interesting--and for me, a good reason to stay up until 4 am in the morning to read about it. And yes, I know I'm a total geek for it.

Remember All Those Times People Said that Apple Was Dead?

Yeah, I remember that too. Heh.

Black is Beautiful; or, $125 for Paint

TUAW pointed out something that I'd noticed before, but never tested in detail: that when you buy a high-end MacBook, you pay a premium for color. In the old MacBooks, there was at least a difference in hard drive capacities, though only a small one. But with the new set of MacBooks, you can configure the models so that all technical specifications are exactly the same, and the only difference that remains is color.

The price difference? $125. That's right, Apple is charging people $125 for black paint instead of white paint. See:

Go ahead, try it yourself. All you have to do is upgrade the white MacBook's hard drive to match the black MacBook. Quite a hefty surcharge for a dead simple, purely ornamental difference.

That said, the black finish on the MacBook is way cool. However, I don't think that I could ever really bring myself around to paying that much for a color.

New MacBooks?

The Apple Store is down, and it's been heavily rumored that five new MacBook models--including possibly one or more ultra-slim, flash-aided, possibly LED-backlit 13" models will be among them. Stay tuned.

No windows?

An interesting idea from a blog called Blackfriar's Marketing: Leopard's secret is that it will start doing away with windows. Not Windows, but windows--the interface element itself. In what would have to be the slickest, most ironic blow to Microsoft, Apple could be edging towards a new UI style that would either force Microsoft to rename their OS or stop copying Apple.

The argument is that many of Apple's products already operate without windows per se. A good example is Apple's Front Row, which is similar to what is used in Apple TV. Instead of a window, one sees one's screen fade into an alternate interface. We have already seen that Leopard's Time Machine software operates in the same way. And the Blackfriar writers point out that most of Apple's apps already use a single-pane interface, giving iTunes and GarageBand as two examples (actually, virtually all of Apple's iLife apps are designed that way, as well as some of its high- and low-end apps). The use of new Core animation and resolution independence could assist this new style.

It takes a bit of re-imagining to wrap your head around this idea. It helps to consider what a "window" is. The concept of a window comes from the fact that often times, what you want to look at takes up more space than is visible on your computer monitor. Say you have a ten-page document; clearly, you cannot display the whole thing on your computer while the text remains large enough to read. So instead, the area with the information is imagined as existing as a greater area than visible on your monitor, and the window acts as a frame through which you view the portion that can fit on your screen. This can never be fully done away with, of course. There will always have to be some window-like properties, where you have to scroll this way or that.

However, one can imagine this being done in a different style. For example, do we really need scroll bars? If we enter a word processor, could the entire document be represented in a translucent overlay to one side (similar to what we see in the side "drawer" in Apple's Preview app when looking at a PDF file, for instance), which could replace the idea of a scroll bar? Maybe it could even pop up and disappear like the Dock so as to save space. Meanwhile, pages in full-size view could float up and down in virtual representation of pieces of paper--this would play right into the Core animation technology Leopard will bring. Things will probably move in the more natural, inertia-based style that we see demonstrated in the iPhone's interface.

So, could all apps work this way? Potentially, yes, though it would require a thorough redesign for most apps. If this is indeed what is coming, then Leopard certainly would not be able to effect this change overnight. At the very least, it would have to allow the old-style interface to persist and have a place for as long as backwards-compatibility is to last. But that's not too hard to imagine--a windows-populated screenscape could simply be another environment, something to switch to like one now switches in and out of the Front Row interface. Leopard's new Spaces feature could even play into it, as the Blackfriar's bloggers suggest.

One visitor to the Blackfriar blog brought up an excellent point, however: what if you want to view two apps simultaneously? This is a common working style for many people, to split the screen between two apps. The blogger responded to this but did not really answer the question. But I can imagine a solution, one that resolution independence could play into: simply have the apps reshape and share the screen--not overlapping necessarily, but splitting the screen's real estate. Think about how Expose works, how the windows slide away from each other--but imagine that the parts are sized (or reshaped) so that there's no dead space between them. Already some apps have toolbars and interface elements that reshape when you resize the window; that could happen if you "pane" two apps to share a screen together. Right now, if I want two apps to appear at the same time and have each one take up optimum space to fill up my screen, I have to carefully resize and place the windows. It would be nice if that could be done automatically, with no part of one app covering up any part of another one, and with no dead, wasted space between them.

Of course, this is all pure speculation. The Blackfriar bloggers point out that they are simply picking up on UI clues that Apple has used in some of its apps that seem to be signaling a sea change. But it is a fascinating idea, and could redefine things in a way that could make Microsoft Windows look like old hat--which could deal a serious blow after MS put five or six years of work into a new version of their OS which merely inched forward, while Apple's OS takes huge strides. And such a significant UI change would be very hard for MS to copy and yet still claim that they are not completely ripping off Apple's ideas.

Mac Tip

If you use a Mac, you might use the Dictionary feature. By this, I don't mean the Dictionary application, but rather the integrated feature where (available in many programs, but not all) when you hover the cursor over a word and hit the designated keyboard shortcut (preset to Control-Command-D), a little box will appear with the Dictionary entry in it.

This can be very handy in looking up definitions, but I find it most useful as an OS-wide thesaurus. Whenever I write a blog or prepare some other writing, I use it constantly.

The problem: normally, the word's definition shows up when you hit the keyboard shortcut, and to get the thesaurus listing, you have to move in with the mouse and click the little menu at the bottom of the pop-up box. It takes time, and when you need synonyms as often as I do, it can be a real pain.

Fortunately, there's a fix in which you can make the thesaurus come up by default instead of the definition. Here's how to do it: Open the Dictionary app, then go to Preferences. You'll see the Dictionary and Thesaurus listed (you can turn either or both on and off, by the way). The dictionary will probably be on top. Just click-and-drag the thesaurus to the top, then close Preferences. From then on, the thesaurus listings will always appear first.

Just a little tip. But I find the feature so useful I thought I'd mention it. And if you're not using the integrated dictionary feature, then start using it: it's very handy indeed.

Leopard Delayed

So, it's official. Apple's Leopard will in fact be delayed until October:

iPhone has already passed several of its required certification tests and is on schedule to ship in late June as planned. We can’t wait until customers get their hands (and fingers) on it and experience what a revolutionary and magical product it is. However, iPhone contains the most sophisticated software ever shipped on a mobile device, and finishing it on time has not come without a price — we had to borrow some key software engineering and QA resources from our Mac OS X team, and as a result we will not be able to release Leopard at our Worldwide Developers Conference in early June as planned. While Leopard's features will be complete by then, we cannot deliver the quality release that we and our customers expect from us. We now plan to show our developers a near final version of Leopard at the conference, give them a beta copy to take home so they can do their final testing, and ship Leopard in October. We think it will be well worth the wait. Life often presents tradeoffs, and in this case we're sure we've made the right ones.

About three weeks ago, a site called DigiTimes predicted that Apple would be delayed until October. Everybody scoffed at the rumor, including me, because they got the other half of the rumor so badly wrong: they claimed that the delay would be caused by adapting Boot Camp to Windows Vista. So while it turns out that they were wrong on the reason, they were in fact right on the timing.

Reports say that Apple's stock has fallen below $90 on the news, which is to be expected; the delay will disappoint a lot of people (not the least of which will be myself). On the other hand, this will end a lot of speculation about when Apple will tell everybody what those "top secret" features of Leopard are; that news will come at the WWDC in June. The bad news is also mitigated by the fact that while a Leopard delay is bad, it it much better than an iPhone delay; the iPhone is, for the time being, considered a much more important development by Apple. Another mitigating factor is the fact that Tiger is already a highly satisfactory OS, and while the features we know about in Leopard are nice, they are not yet something that people will miss yet--a positive side effect of not telling us what all of Leopard's features are, I suppose.

This delay, however, has the effect of moving Apple closer to Microsoft's sphere of incompetence; for a long time, Apple's supporters (again, including myself) have been mocking Redmond for not being able to get a product out on time. There will no doubt be quite a bit of carping by Windows supporters about how Apple now sucks just the same. Of course, there are mitigating factors here, as well. One of them is the fact that this represents a delay of four months, not three years. Another is the fact that, as far as we know, Apple has not had to cut several key features of Leopard in order to get it out on time, as was the case with Vista. And finally, there will be the final release quality of Leopard: if it sucks like Vista, then there will be some justice to the carping, otherwise not so much. And, of course, there is still the fact that since Apple's 2-year-old Tiger is still more advanced than Windows Vista, we can well afford to wait an extra four months for a new OS.

Let's just hope that this is the last of the bad news from Apple for a while.

That's It

Apple regularly demonstrates genius in design. Their laptops inspire comments of awe when people first see them. Their consumer desktops are emulated industry-wide and decorate desks of innumerable computer users on TV shows and movies. iPods rule the music-player market, and the iPhone is a thing of beauty. So why is it that Apple can't build a mouse that doesn't suck big huge hairy ones?

Ever since the beginning, Apple's mice have never been good. Attractive, often yes, but not of any quality that would make people want to use them. Remember the hockey-puck mouse sold with the first iMacs, the one which, since it was round, your hand accidentally rotated it so it wouldn't respond properly? Who the hell designs a circular mouse and doesn't see the design flaw in three minutes? Then Steve Jobs got stuck up on the idea that a mouse should have a surface unbroken by seams, and hasn't been able to get over it since. It took forever for Apple to finally release a two-button mouse, and longer still to fit a scroll wheel into it.

Well, today I am officially retiring my Mighty Mouse. After having used it for six months now, it has proven to be nothing but a pain in the ass for me. I know there are people out there who like it, but I am not one of them. I tried, God knows I tried. But the damn thing just sucks.

I went over some of the major reasons four months ago. The scroll wheel was hard to handle, the rocking left-right clicking mechanism doesn't work well, and the side buttons are very badly designed. Well, I eventually got used to the feel of the scroll wheel, and still do like the flexibility of 360˚ scrolling, but then I discovered a new common flaw: it gets gummed up after a while and stops working properly. This should have been obvious to a skilled designer: after all, the whole reason we switched to laser mice is because the sensor wheels that drove the old ball mice would get gummed up by hand grime. It was a pain to have your mouse always become less and less functional, and to have to remove the ball every month or so and clean the rollers with your fingernails or some other sharp object. So what does Apple do? They create another ball-controlled object on their new laser mice, except that this one can't even be removed for cleaning! Instead, you have to take a cloth with cleaning solution and roll the ball with that, and hope that it cleans the works sufficiently. Every month or so. Sorry, I gave up on ball mice to get away from that crap.

The left- and right-clicking mechanism is something I never got used to. I still have trouble with it, so that every 10th click or so is the opposite of what I intend. Message to Apple: put a goddamned seam in the thing like every other mouse maker on the planet, so the buttons will work properly for everyone.

And the side buttons are even worse than I thought. Aside from being hard to activate as I reported before, I found that they will activate for the wrong reasons. One mouse move I often make is when I am clicking-and-dragging and I run out of desk space before I get the cursor to where I want. When that happens, I lift up the mouse while continuing to hold down the left mouse button (such as it is), put the mouse down in a new position with more room, and then continue to move in the same direction. Doing this requires you to hold on to the sides of the mouse tighter in order to keep the left button depressed--which then activates the side buttons, with whatever function you have assigned to them, whilst simultaneously losing your click-and-drag. Bad, bad designing.

But it gets worse. The batteries run out all too quickly, and there are three different annoyances associated with that. First is that the Bluetooth software on the Mac OS is designed to flash incessantly in your menu bar to warn you of a low battery in your mouse and/or keyboard. I tried to turn this off and couldn't get it to work. Bluetooth prefs allow you to turn off showing Bluetooth status in your menu bar, but mine would not frakking go away, even after restarting the computer. And I despise things flashing on my screen. What's more, the flashing would start a good two weeks or more before the actual battery failure, so if I followed the warning immediately I'd be throwing out batteries with a good deal of juice still in them.

Then comes the problems associated with changing the batteries. The Apple mouse has an on/off switch which is badly designed. It doubles as a cover for the laser sensor, but because of the way it's designed, it is virtually impossible to close the cover and turn off the mouse without accidentally clicking the mouse a few times before it turns off, thus screwing up wherever you left your cursor.

And then, when you put new batteries in and turn on the mouse again, it is not recognized immediately by the Mac. The first time I did this, I waited ten minutes for the computer to recognize the mouse, and it didn't work. I tried turning the mouse off and on again, putting it closer and further away from the computer, I tried leaving it turned on in place for five minutes--nothing. (And yes, I had Bluetooth set to Discoverable, and the mouse was in the Favorites list.) Instead, I had to use Bluetooth File Exchange to browse the mouse back into recognition, and to do that, I had to dig up another mouse and plug it in first. Bad, bad, bad design.

I finally had it up to here with the damn thing, and after the hundred-thousandth mis-click, I just set the thing aside and plugged in an alternate wire mouse that I usually use at school (Spring vacation gives me another month before I have to buy a replacement for that). The Mighty Mouse will serve as an emergency backup, or I might use it as an alternate mouse at school.

Now, the other Bluetooth mouse I have, the Logitech V270, that works beautifully. Why can't Apple just color the thing white and use that? Would it really kill them?

Tiring of Fake Mac Virus Stories, Media Jumps at Fake iPod Virus Story

The new story out: viruses attack your iPod! Errr... sort of. The report is that a virus app called "Podloso" now can affect your iPod directly. Providing, of course, that you are a stupendous idiot. It's yet another proof-of-concept virus:

"We've seen it happen over and over in the malware world. Someone will do a test, creating a simple thing that does no real damage. Once hackers see that the approach works, they continue to tweak it and use it for malicious intent," said Dee Liebenstein, director of product management at SecureWave, a Luxembourg vendor of security software that helps companies control when and how portable devices connect to corporate computers.

Gee whiz, another security company being the source of a bogus Apple virus threat--who'da thought?

The "approach" for this virus that hackers will follow? Well, first you have to install Linux on your iPod. Then, if the virus is on the iPod, you have to intentionally run the virus. Yeah, that "approach" should work just great! All hackers have to do is trick iPod users into installing the Linux operating system onto their computers and then installing and loading the virus after that. No problem!

The article then mentions that iPods carried a Windows virus last fall; even though they added the caveat that such a virus doesn't actually infect or affect the iPod itself, the addition of this information in an article about an iPod "virus" only adds to the misconception that something is going to affect their iPod. In truth, the iPod as sold is completely unaffected, as it was with the Windows virus.

The problem with these "proof of concept" viruses for Apple products is that, at least so far, all of them require the user to both have some kind of unusual setup on their product, and then after that, do something monumentally stupid in order for the "virus" to work.

Plus, we've been hearing these reports of waves of viruses coming to Apple products for quite some time now, and still nothing has materialized. It was two and a half years ago that the rootkit "Opener" was announced, and two years since Symantec announced that "it is now clear that the Mac OS is increasingly becoming a target for the malicious activity that is more commonly associated with Microsoft and various Unix-based operating systems." Almost a year after Symantec's panic warning, the "first" Mac "virus" came out, except that it was actually a trojan, and required someone to click on an image and the type in user authentication to run it. If I recall correctly, all of one people were affected by it.

Viruses will eventually come for the Mac, and maybe even someday for the iPod. However, don't let these scare articles released by self-serving anti-virus vendors trick you: so far, there is still no malware out there for Apple products that actually works worth a damn.

An Old Gunfire Cliche, with an iPod Twist

You've heard the story a thousand times: someone is hit by a bullet aimed at their heart, but an object in their breast pocket (usually a small bible, but also some other item such as a lucky coin, a locket, or some such) stops the bullet and saves the person's life.

Well, here's the 21st century telling of the tale: an iPod stops the bullet. U.S. Army Sergeant Kevin Garrad of the 3rd Infantry Division was on a street patrol in Iraq. As he rounded a corner, he came face-to-face with an insurgent. Both men open fire at near-point-blank range. The insurgent was killed, and Kevin almost was: the insurgent's AK-47 fired a bullet which, at that range, probably would have penetrated his body armor--except that his iPod, in his left breast pocket, took the bullet instead, slowing it down enough so the MP3 player likely saved the soldier's life. Photos from tikigod at Flickr:

I don't even have to speculate as to whether someone at Apple will see this and send the guy a new iPod: apparently they did, and they will.

Cool.

It's a Long Wait Until June

Humor me. I'm going off on another Mac-is-great rant. For those who tire of this, movealongthere'snothingtoseehere.

Well, okay, so June is only a little more than two months away (if it will take until June, as many are now reporting). But in two months, something come out that I am very excited about. Specifically: Leopard. But not just Leopard: also iWork, with (most likely) a spreadsheet app that will complete the suite as an alternative to Microsoft Office, and the next version of iLife. Supposedly the suite is coming out in June, possibly June 11th. According to the lethargic and yet usually well-sourced ThinkSecret rumor site:

"Leopard is shaping up to be a more significant release than anyone expected, with much more to come than any of the developer builds have led on," one source said.

Also scheduled for a June release now are new versions of Apple's iLife and iWork suites, which will pack extensive Leopard-dependent features. Sources say Apple continues to toy with the idea of bundling one or both suites with the new operating system free of charge in an effort to further play up the extra value and features Mac OS X offers over Microsoft's new Windows Vista.

... Apple's next version of iWork, meanwhile, is poised to compete even more directly with Office with the addition of a new spreadsheet application.

One has to wonder at what Apple has up its sleeve. I have become convinced that Apple does indeed have something rather special. I refuse to believe that Steve Jobs would talk up "Top Secret" features, let rumors build for 6-9 months, and then say it was all a gag and Apple has only a tepid upgrade to release. That would be incredibly stupid, and Steve Jobs is not incredibly stupid. Obstinate, secretive, obsessive, and perhaps even egotistical, yes. But not stupid.

And if the rumor is right and Apple actually decides to sell Leopard with iLife and iWork bundled, it's my belief that they would have a blockbuster on their hands. For just $30 more than the lowest upgrade-level pricing for Microsoft's most-disabled version of Vista, you would get a full-featured OS at least 2-3 years ahead of Vista, bundled with most of the software you'd ever need for a computer--including an office suite comparable to what Microsoft is selling for $340. And all this would come free with the purchase of any Mac.

Bundling in iWork would be the finishing touch. When I compare a Mac and Windows purchase for my students, I always have to add a few hundred bucks for the purchase of an Office suite, as they need Excel, and can get Word and Excel bundled with most PC purchases. If I could tell them that they could get a Mac and that a full office suite--including presentations software (not offered in the PC bundle, you have to buy PowerPoint separate)--would be bundled with it, that might be enough to make even more of them decide on the Mac purchase instead of the PC.

Think about it: here's the list of software that would come with Leopard, with most of the listed apps being integrated for cross-functionality:

• Pages (word processor, Word-compatible)
• Keynote (presentation, PowerPoint-compatible)
• Numbers/Charts (spreadsheet, Excel-compatible)
• iTunes (music/video media center, iPod Syncing)
• iMovie (video editor)
• iDVD (video DVD creator)
• iPhoto (digital photo cataloging/editing)
• iWeb (web page editor/publisher)
• GarageBand (music publishing software)
• Mail (email)
• Safari (browser)
• iCal (calendar software)
• iChat (text/audio/video chat software)
• Address Book
• Time Machine (backup/recovery)
• Dictionary
• Dashboard / Dashcode
• Accessory apps: PhotoBooth, Front Row, QuickTime, TextEdit, DVD Player, Preview, Automator, Applescript, and more

That would be one hell of a lineup for a $130 purchase. And even without the fact that Boot Camp and/or Parallels lets you run all Windows apps on your Mac, that whole package bundled with every Mac would shoot down most complaints about software not being available for the Mac. Most of the software that most people would ever use would come free with the machine!

If Apple does it right, of which there's no guarantee. Still, one can dream, yes?

So... Where's Leopard?

The Apple TV is shipping, and we know most there is to know about the iPhone, which should ship in mid-June. Aside from new releases of Mac systems (including 8-core Mac Pros and perhaps-redesigned iMacs), the only big mystery expected from Apple is Leopard, OS X 10.5. The mystery contains two elements: when will it be released, and what are those "top secret" parts of the OS that Steve Jobs teased about last year?

Unless Apple is going to seriously undermine everyone's confidence in them by announcing a delay in the release of Leopard, especially this late in the game, Leopard will come out no later than June 20th. Apple is still now promising a "Spring" release of the OS, and has given no indication that it will miss that range. Speculation is rife over when the release will be, and all bets are off on Apple following established patterns because this OS has a very different paradigm--those aforementioned "secret" features.

Some are saying that a release is imminent because Apple just released OS X version 10.4.9, and in the past two versions of the OS, the big upgrade came within six weeks of the last incremental upgrade.

Others, however, point to the fact the developer's releases of OS X (the versions that software makers get so they can prepare their applications to work with the new OS as soon as possible after its release) are still way too buggy, and that these problems could not possibly be ironed out before June. Some have even suggested that Apple will miss spring altogether and won't release until July or later.

But the "secret" features throw a wrench into this speculation. Apple is definitely keeping this very hush-hush, and there is almost certainly something significant going on that we haven't heard about yet. Apple proved they could keep stuff quiet with the iPhone--no one predicted that one correctly before Jobs unveiled it--and if Jobs was exaggerating and the "secret" features are just a minor bell and whistle here and there, there will be massive disappointment.

So assume that there are fairly substantial features about Leopard yet to be revealed, secrets Apple wants to keep as quiet as they kept the iPhone before January. That means they could not send these features out in the standard developer's builds. Despite NDAs (non-disclosure agreements), anything that comes out in developer's builds almost instantly gets leaked to rumor sites.

What does that mean? It means that Apple is building the OS along two lines: the secret-feature-free standard developer's builds, and the internal build at Apple which has all the secret features built into it. This is not a new idea; after all, Apple had Intel-compatible builds of OS X running for years and developers never got wind of those.

Such an internal build would explain why developer's builds are still so buggy: as the secret features become more and more integrated into the final version of the OS, the developers get less and less of that part of the OS, leaving them with outdated chunks of the OS which will still be buggy. So buggy developer releases don't reflect the status of the actual OS, and Apple could still release Leopard at any time.

Some have argued that this is not possible because Apple would get pummeled with criticism if they suddenly released the OS in such a different form that it would 'break' current versions of developers' applications. However, that doesn't have to be the case. After all, most new OS releases will work fine with past software; while many programs do need to be updated with new OS releases, Apple's secret features do not need to be program-breakers. Apple is, hopefully, releasing enough in the developer's builds to allow software makers to make their apps work with Leopard.

Of course, like everything else, the above is pure speculation. Apple will release Leopard when it will release Leopard. We just have to wait, is all.

One note: Ars Technica reports that Leopard will not allow "InputManager plugins" anymore. What are those? For me, the main significance is that they're the things which allow browser plugins such as PithHelmet and SafariStand to work. Why is Apple (maybe) doing this? Security. Apparently, those InputManager plugins are how many of the attempted security breaches are exploited.

If this is true, that will be a major disappointment for me. Yes, the new Safari features will be cool, and I'll want them... but the price will be high: PithHelmet blocks ads and Flash animations in Safari, something I have become very enamored of; SafariStand brings back all the windows you had open when Safari last quit or crashed, and though I've had that for only a short time, I will miss it very much. The new Safari will be cool, but it will also be ad-ridden and annoyingly animated. Argh.

Hopefully, these mods will be redesigned so they can still do the same thing in some other way, but even if that happens, it may take a long time for that to come.

Update: New rumor says that Leopard will be delayed until October. The source has been known to get some rumors right, but this one sounds so utterly fake that one would have to be the most naive person on the planet to accept it. Why? Because the stated reason is:

Apple is expected to launch its next generation Leopard operating system (OS) in April, but according to industry sources, the release of the new OS will be postponed to October to allow Apple to make Leopard support Windows Vista through an integrated version of its Boot Camp software.

And that's got to be the dumbest rumor I've ever heard. Apple holding up its latest and greatest OS, the OS that will support the iPhone and multiple other apps and hardware, push all of them back at least four months... just so 1% of the user base can install Vista on their Macs? Please.

Boot Camp Ease

A student of mine bought a Mac Mini, and asked for my help installing Windows XP via Boot Camp. Glad to help a new Mac user, I agreed--and was surprised at how easy it was.

When I had heard that Boot Camp would need to partition the disk to allow space for XP, I naturally assumed that the entire hard drive would have to be wiped and that both the Mac and Windows OS would have to be installed from the start. This comes from my history of formatting disks, which (and perhaps I was in error in assuming this) I could swear required blanking the whole disk first. Apparently, hard disks can be repartitioned on the fly today; you don't have to wipe the drive or re-install the Mac OS.

In fact, the entire process was painless, save of course for the tedium of the Windows installation. Not only does it take longer than a Mac OS install, but it requires intervention at various times in the process, so you have to stick around and watch the screen, else risk having it stay at 33-minutes-to-go while it waits for you to enter the registration code, while you are somewhere else believing that the process is ongoing. The Mac OS install, last time I checked, required no such intervention. Just let it go.

The process is pretty easy: create a CD with drivers for Windows; decide how much disk space to dedicate to XP; install XP; then install the Mac drivers from the CD you made. And you're done.

Simple. Like most stuff with the Mac. It reminds me of conversations I've had with people about printers lately. By chance, I have had discussions with different people using Windows, and the difficulties they have had with their printers. A few can't get their printers to work with Vista. One risks losing the ability to print every time she disconnects the USB cable. And so on.

A student who recently bought a Macbook came to me for their Mac starter lecture, and I wanted to show them how easy it would be to create a driver. In my experience, you had to open the Print system preference, click the "+" button, select the printer from the list, make sure the driver selection was right, and then click "Add." At that, it's dead easy.

But his Mac surprised me. All I had to do was plug in my Canon i560, and viola--it appeared in his printer list without his having to lift a finger. We didn't even have to open the System Preferences--it was just there. Plug it in and it works. My student with the Mac Mini got the same thing. Easier than dead easy. The same kind of thing happened to me when I wanted to print using the school's Fuji-Xerox color photocopier. I'm not talking about a standard printer, I'm talking about a full-fledged, honking-big office copy machine. Our guy in the office told me that I would need a special driver from the company; certainly a Windows machine would need that. But all I needed was to plug in my Mac, open the Print pref pane, look for the printer on the IP network, and seconds later I was printing in color.

I should probably take the opportunity here to mention a pitfall in my constant crooning about Macs: they do suffer from problems. I get the feeling that people who listen to me and switch to Macs (more and more people do so at my school) get the impression that there is never any difficulty, that you never encounter problems. Of course, that's not the case.

But most of the time, it's so damned easy to work with that it's easy to forget that.

Apple vs. Dell

This news sent Apple stock rising:

Sales of Apple Inc.'s Mac line of personal computers saw year-over-year growth accelerate over 100 percent during the month of January, with revenue growth rising even further, according to Pacific Crest Securities.

In a brief research note distributed to clients on Thursday, the firm cited NPD market research data which implies that year-over-year growth in Mac unit sales accelerated in January to 101 percent, up from 55 percent in December.

Meanwhile, a rise in the average selling price (ASPs) of Macs is reported to have driven even greater year-over-year dollar sales growth of 108 percent during the same time period, again, up from 55 percent in December. ...

Hargreaves said that sales of Mac notebooks grew 194 percent year-over-year in January with a rising ASP that drove 221 percent revenue growth in the segment.

"January was the third-largest revenue month for Mac notebooks ever," he added.

Meanwhile, Dell stocks tumbled at this news:

Dell reported a 33 percent drop in fourth-quarter profits, slightly ahead of expectations. But the No. 2 PC maker's sales figures came in below estimates, and Dell warned that growth and profit margins will remain "under pressure" for the next few quarters.

Shares of Dell ... fell 2 percent in after-hours trading on the news. ...

"Both desktop and notebook sales looked weak," said Bill Fearnley Jr., an analyst with FTN Midwest. "The notebook number was especially anemic given the overall strength in the category."

This does not overly surprise me. Even though this is completely local and anecdotal, my workplace has been undergoing a Mac tidal wave. When I first came here in 1998, I was the only one in the building who owned a Mac. That continued for years, but recently it seems that everyone is getting a Mac. Out of the full-time faculty, 5 of the 7 have Macs (two bought in the past few months), and one more is on the verge of buying. A part-time member just bought a Mac a few days ago, and four or five of my students have also bought Macs.

Like I said, completely local and anecdotal. And yes, I do work in education. And yet, it does represent a significant change from the recent past, and I think it does demonstrate how the Mac has new appeal, especially due to the ability to run Windows.

iPhone Rundown

Sean has an excellent piece spelling out what's fantastic about the new iPhone; go check it out. And while we're at it, maybe we can start a petition to get Cingular to start servicing his town again.

Not in the Stevenote

I mentioned a rather glaring omission from the keynote last night/this morning, which was Leopard, and upon review, the keynote also did not talk about iLife, nor did it talk about iWork and the anticipated new spreadsheet software.

In fact, the keynote made no mention of software at all. Nor did it mention any upgrades to computer lines. Just the iTV and iPhone.

That's something. It is doubtful that Apple has nothing to present along software and PC hardware lines. Which means that Apple probably has a new announcement waiting to be made at some point. After all, when are we going to find out about those "top secret" points about OS X?

One interesting detail about the iPhone that was not mentioned by the keynote bloggers was the screen resolution: 320 by 480 pixels. The 3.5-inch screen beats Zune's "big" 3-inch screen, and has a better resolution--double, in fact--than the Zune's or previous iPod's 320 x 240 pixels.

Question: what will happen to existing iPod lines? Will there be no widescreen, touch-controlled iPod without a telephone? That would seem foolish. Will it include WiFi and/or Bluetooth? Will it have all the features of iPhone, but without the phone?

No time to go on about this--gotta get ready for work. More questions and speculation later...

Stevenote

I have to get to bed as soon as I can (it's after 2 am here in Tokyo), so I might actually miss out on the last part of the keynote... but for me, it won't matter too much, as I'll just wake up and see it then. But so far, the MacWorld Expo Keynote is showing good news. And Wall Street seems to expect good news--even before the keynote started, Apple stock was up more than $2, and it's still rising moment by moment. I wonder what it'll do when the Apple phone is announced.

The news so far: contrary to a prior "study", iTunes Store sales are not slowing down. They have gone up, rather sharply in fact, with more than 2 billion total tracks sold, 5 million more sold each day. 50 million TV shows sold. That's not too shabby at all. And finally Steve announced a new studio signing on for movie sales--that would be Paramount--although many expected more studios to be signing on as well.

Then there's less-than-stellar news, about the Apple TV (formerly "iTV"), with the expected WiFi-n superfast streaming from up to 5 computers in the house. TV shows, movies, music, pictures can all be streamed through to your TV and stereo system, temporarily residing on the Apple TV's 40 GB hard drive. But that's it. The ability to stream wirelessly from computers to your entertainment system. No rental-movie scheme. I don't get it. Why spend $300 on that?

Apple stock just dropped $2! They must agree with me that the iTV is a bust.

But now Steve has dropped a bombshell: he announced the widescreen, touch-controlled iPod, the iPhone, and a third "Internet communications device" all in one swoop! Edit: it looks like they are all the same machine.

First, the iPhone (yes, "iPhone"): it uses an intelligent, next-generation touch-screen interface. It runs OS X. The screen displays 160 pixels per inch, 11/16ths of an inch thick, proximity sensor (to tell if it is near your face), orientation sensor to tell if it is held in portrait or landscape mode, 2 MP camera built in. And an iPod, of course--as well as just about everything else on OS X. Beautiful interface.

Photos shamelessly ripped off from Engadget.

Apple stock just jumped $2.50. And rising.

The iPhone is a "quad-band GSM + EDGE phone," whatever that means. It has both WiFi and Bluetooth 2.0 (eat that, Zune!).

And yes! It has a keyboard interface that makes sense! No more hitting a numeric key seven times to produce a single letter! I am getting one of these babies!

The Zune is now officially dead. No way it can overcome this.

The iPhone uses Safari (excellent web surfing, with zoom feature), widgets, Google Maps (including satellite images), POP3 and IMAP email, WiFi and "EDGE" networking (EDGE gets up to 384 Kbps Internet connection). Photo gallery, all sorts of software... this is like a mini-computer.

[Holy crap--unless someone's playing a gag on me, John Varley just left a comment in a past entry. What a night!]

Apple's stock is flying--up $4.12 for the day so far, rose $2 in the past ten minutes--after Steve checked it on the iPhone and it was at $2.43.

A month ago, when Kevin Rose speculated that the iPhone would sell for $250 (4GB) and $450 (8GB), I wrote: "Frankly, I don't know about paying $450 for a cell phone; it'd have to be pretty goddamned spectacular."

Well, it's pretty goddamned spectacular. And I would drop the cash for one right now.

More: Bluetooth means you can use Bluetooth accessories, like wireless headset. 16 hours battery life for audio, 5 hours using the video screen/phone.

And here's the price: more than expected, it's $500 for 4GB, $600 for 8GB. Still well worth it.

The first bad news: due to FCC and other regulatory roadblocks, it won't come out until June. I was just about to type that I know what I'm gonna get for my birthday... when I saw that it won't be out in Asia until 2008. Damn!!!

This will be one device I will know the most about and anticipate more than anything else... and still will have to wait a year or more before I can get one. Argh.

I just realized that the 2 hours are nearly up and Leopard hasn't even been mentioned yet.

If there's more, it'll have to wait. I gotta get to bed. Good night.

More Free Mac Apps

Let's look at a few Safari add-ons this time. By itself, Safari is a good browser, but has very large, gaping holes in its features. For example, being unable to shut down flash animations or animated gifs; that's a deal-stopper for me right there. Fortunately, there are two very powerful helper apps available for Safari.

The first is PithHelmet. Described on its site as "an ad blocker for Safari," it does much more than just that. But in that primary role, it does a great job. Just install PithHelmet, and pretty much all of those annoying, flashing, jumping ads simply evaporate. You can go with just that, or you can delve into the PithHelmet menu or preferences and start really controlling how your web sites appear. The add-on will allow you to set very specific preferences for each and every site that you visit. For example, if you want Flash on by default but one site you enjoy annoys you with non-advertising flash animations (ads will be blocked anyway), then you can turn Flash off for that site only. Or the reverse--if you have animated images turned off by default but you want to see them move on this or that particular site, PithHelmet allows that. In fact, each site can be customized by a few dozen settings. PithHelmet is $10 shareware, but you can use it for free by clicking "I paid" in the preference pane. I paid for it, it's such a good add-on.

The second app, which I just recently found, is SafariStand (why these guys can't put spaces between the two words of the app names I don't know). SafariStand also has a good number of features. The two I use most are the ability to make "open in new window" links open to a new tab instead, and the ability to remember all the web pages you had open when Safari unexpectedly quits (something which happens more than I'd like). One feature I don't use but is often cited as cool is the ability of SafariStand to create a sidebar with thumbnails of all the pages you have open; it acts like a graphic tab bar, and allows you to switch to or close any tab open in the window. SafariStand also has powerful search tools for your bookmarks, surfing history, and html documents on your computer. It also adds some extra preferences, like killing gif animations. You can even use the period and comma to toggle through your open tabs--but only if keyboard actions are not pointed at the address bar or some open text area. More is explained in these reviews here and here. SafariStand is free.

Both of these add-ons used the SIMBL method. Install PithHelmet first, and it'll install SIMBL for you. That might make installing SafariStand easier.

For more on pimping up of your Safari, visit the appropriately-named Pimp My Safari.

I know that some of you will say that Firefox does most or all of this and does it better, and so on. Maybe so, but I did try Firefox, several times, using the extensions people pointed to and whatever else I could find on the Mozilla site, but in the end, it just didn't suit me right, and there were too many problems. With Safari, the interface is just how I like it, and with these two simple add-ons, I can get all the alterations I want or need... for the moment.

Apple Rumors

I think that I should build a widget that counts down the number of days until the iPhone and touch-screen video iPod will be released. The widget would display a different random number every four hours.

Today marked the release of many new rumors. This includes a hot rumor from a highly untested, not to mention vague, source: "Gizmodo Knows: iPhone Will Be Announced On Monday. I guarantee it. It isn't what I expected at all. And I've already said too much."

So far, everyone is taking this with a grain of salt approximately the size of Montana. Some people are even hedging that announcement to mean that it might not be next Monday, but some later Monday, which would be incredibly lame.

Think Secret, on the other hand, says that the release will be delayed, and is releasing yet another contradictory set of specs relative to earlier rumors. They say the iPhone will not be 3G, but instead will be 2.5G, and that Apple is trying to get carriers not to subsidize the iPhone, else it will become a simple "commodity." They also say that it should be considered more an iPod with a phone than a phone with an iPod.

In the meantime, expectations are again high for Mac sales next year.

Stupid

Apple stock fell almost $3 on news of a report that Apple's iTunes Store sales of music are "plummeting," falling 65% over the past year. This report is stupid for several reasons.

First, the study did not measure overall sales; it measures only sales of "2,791 U.S. iTunes debit and credit card purchases between April 2004 and June 2006." (This is not noted in most media articles.) Not all sales, not all types of sales, and not sales worldwide. In other words, a tiny and probably non-representative chunk of Apple music sales.

Second, the drop is measured by taking the peak sales number to compare by, and does not give a sense of the overall trends. Furthermore, the peak took place in January, after many people were given gift cards, and the "present" lull was actually last June, not necessarily a high sales month. Measure the sales in January 2007 and then you might have something.

Third, Apple does not profit much directly from iTS sales; it makes little difference to Apple whether people buy from the iTS or rip the music from purchased CDs, or even load pirated music onto their iPods--the key numbers for Apple are the sales of the iPods, which are booming.

The report as quoted in the media is alarmist, distorting, and out of context--and caused Apple's stock to drop 3%. Like I said, stupid.

Update: I wrote this last night, but only uploaded it this morning (at my folks' house, for some reason a blog entry won't post if I do it from a WiFi connection, so I have to plug in an Ethernet cable to alter the blog). Since then, a new report from PiperJaffray blows the Forrester "study" to bits, noting Apple iTS sales growing steadily based upon sales milestones which Apple reports. The new report says that iTS sales have increased 78% between September 2005 and September 2007. Here's another report from ZDNet also debunking the report.

Update 2: Now the writer of the report is backtracking, saying that he did not mean that Apple sales were "plummeting," but that the media blew it all out of proportion. The writer says, "Now for the record, iTunes sales are not collapsing. Our credit card transaction data shows a real drop between the January post-holiday peak and the rest of the year, but with the number of transactions we counted it's simply not possible to draw this conclusion... as we pointed out in the report." He further clarifies by making most of the points I made: the data is partial, it measure a peak vs. the rest of the year, and Apple makes money from the iPods, not the music store.

Told ya!

Nevertheless, it took this joker a day to clarify himself while Apple's stock tumbled 3%. Possibly because he recanted, and partially because it was clear to anyone who thought about it for a minute that the report was not worth paying attention to, Apple's stock has since risen back to 30 cents above where it was when it fell yesterday.

Update 3: While more and more reports question the original story, and even the report's author is debunking the media's spin on it, some in the media--major news outlets, in fact--a few days later, are still running with the original and now completely discredited slant. Amazing.

First Hints at the Top Secret Stuff?

When Steve Jobs unveiled Leopard a few months back, he said that he was leaving some stuff out, some "Top Secret" information kept that way so that Microsoft wouldn't have the chance to copy it so soon. Most people doubted that this was the real reason; even if Microsoft will copy the hidden features (which they probably will, eventually), it would have been far too late for them to have incorporated the changes into Vista, and there will be way more than enough time after Leopard's final release for them to still copy the features in the next version of Windows a few years down the road.

So why was some stuff top secret? Probably most of it has to do with upcoming product releases that Apple wants to keep secret for the time being, including the iPhone and some aspects of iTV, and perhaps even the rumored fullscreen iPod. Releasing some OS details may have given away too much about these items.

Other reasons could include Jobs keeping some juicy stuff saved for the January MacWorld Expo, a new strategy for keeping people interested in a product by stringing out descriptions over time (like with the iTV), or even because the features are unfinished and might not look good enough to release yet.

That last reason may be the one behind keeping the new OS' interface changes secret. One of the rumored changes in Leopard is the Finder; many have hoped that Apple would "FtFF" ("Fix the Fracking Finder," so to speak), and perhaps overhaul the overall appearance of the OS. There have been subtle hints about this--new styles applied to iTunes, and small imperfections of the GUI in developer releases of Leopard.

But today there is a rumor that reveals a little bit more: that the UI will have an all new name, to replace the "Aqua" moniker given it from the start. The new name is supposedly "Illuminous." No details on the new look except for a report that the latest build of the OS incorporates more "black gloss" than might be expected. Though how black gloss might go along with the idea of illumination is anyone's guess, and suggests that these rumors are either partially or fully untrue or that we're really missing the big picture here.

Whatever the case, it is probably true that Apple has two lines of OS releases: one that is going out to developers, and one that is kept in-house, which has the "secret" features. The developers' version is likely to have a certain amount of placeholder stuff (explaining some of the graphic rough edges), with only the parts of the secret stuff which are absolutely necessary to build into the OS being incorporated until Jobs is ready to spill some more beans.

What Is iTV?

Sometime early next year, Apple will start selling a new item, aside from (possibly) the iPhone or touchscreen video iPod. Oddly, this was announced a few months ago--something that is almost never done by Apple, previewing an upcoming product. But as with Leopard, not everything was revealed about the product. Here's what we've been told:

The set-top box will sell for about $300. It will have ports in the back for component (RCA) video and audio, USB2, Ethernet, and optical audio. It will come equipped with WiFi. It will be able to automatically locate any computer in your house on the network (wireless or Ethernet), and stream photos, audio, and video between the computer(s) and the set-top box. There is a control interface similar to Front Row. "iTV" is not its real name, just a placeholder.

The idea as stated so far is that the unit will be like a media center and allow you to control all the media on your Mac (or, presumably, any other iTunes-connected computer) and see it or hear it on your TV and stereo system.

Now, just that alone doesn't really sound too spectacular; the same could be accomplished by using Front Row and hooking up your Mac to your TV/stereo with cables. Even if your Mac is too far from your TV to do that, would you still want to pay 300 bucks just to stream like that?

But there is more. For example, the WiFi is not specifically identified, but all new Macs for several months now have come equipped with a new WiFi protocol called IEEE 802.11n; existing protocols can send data at a max of 54 Mbps (6.75 MB/sec), while 802.11n can send at between 2 and 5 times faster than that (potentially as much as 10 times faster, eventually). But the WiFi-n is not activated--it was kind of slipped in there quietly by Apple, and will likely be turned on at some near-future date. It is a no-brainer that this is being done, at least in part, to prep for the iTV.

But the big speculation is over what Apple isn't telling us. Obviously they're leaving something out. The iTV as described is very unimpressive, and it would be hard to believe that Apple could sell too many.

However, two missing details could give a hint as to what Apple might be planning. First is the question of a hard drive, which would allow the box to do more than just streaming. And the other would be how strong the DRM is on the box, making it a possible home for more than just ordinary video. These are big items if you want to see the unit as something worth all the secrecy and development.

In discussions with my family, one possibility came out as a good possibility: a new rental video system. The old Blockbuster-style brick-and-mortar system is beginning to die. Some people would rather pay a bit more at Wal-Mart and own the movie. Others use the alternative Netflix. But both rental paradigms have drawbacks. Brick-and-mortar rental shops often have OK availability, but you have to travel back and forth to the shop, and everyone hates the time restrictions and late fees. Netflix does away with both of those problems, but availability can be a huge problem with them, and turnaround time using the postal service can take days.

Imagine Apple coming up with a third option: order a movie over the iTunes Store. It then streams to your iTV, where it sits within the nicely DRM-protected hard drive. You may then play it on your TV as much as you want for the next 3 days, after which time it disappears. Availability could be 100%--a movie would never be out of stock, as they would be digital--and delivery would be nearly instantaneous. Even better, if Apple could swing a deal with the movie studios like Microsoft did with the music labels, a monthly subscription fee could substitute for the per-title system; this would be essentially the same service as Netflix, but without any of the disadvantages--save for the initial expenditure for the set-top box.

Standing in the way of this might be the greed of the movie studios: with DVD sales driving profits for them more than even box office sales, they might not want to risk cutting into that market for a much lower-priced alternative. Also, there would be other disadvantages: the quality of the video would likely be the same as the current iTunes Store videos (barely NTSC, not HDTV for certain), and special features on DVDs would not be available. Also, movie studios would likely be hesitant to join, meaning a small library to start out with (like Apple's current buy-to-own movie download service, which currently features only several dozen Disney titles).

However, if this is what Apple is planning, and it they can make it work, it could be to movies what the iPod is to music--which I would imagine is what Apple probably set out to do with the set-top box in the first place.

January iPhone?

MacRumors is reporting that a usually reliable source says the iPhone will be released in January. As previously reported, it will be "unlocked," meaning that it is not married to a specific service provider--you can use it with any service you like. Also as reported, the iPhone would double as a portable music device, roughly equivalent to an iPod Nano.

The source, Kevin Rose, did come out with new info, aside from the January release date: the form factor is extremely small, the device will have two batteries (one for the phone, one for the music player), it will be priced at $250 for the 4GB version and $450 for the 8GB version, there will be a slide-out keyboard (not number pad?--it might be a full alphanumeric, but that's unclear), and it will do some "unique things." If you listen to the podcast (they start talking about it at 38:30), either Rose is BS'ing all of us and putting on a big act, or he has seen the phone in an inactive state, and has heard quite a bit about it--but is very reluctant to say much for fear of burning his source. He did not mention anything about a built-in camera or possible wireless (Bluetooth again assumed) syncing abilities, though one would assume both are in the phone.

Rose did mention that it might have touch-screen "on the outside," which sounds like the touch-activated technology reported a short time ago.

I'd almost say that it would be a possibility that the touch-screen video iPod and the iPhone are going to be one and the same, but 4GB doesn't seem like enough for holding any amount of video--unless the big price break for the 8GB model is because that is the video iPod combo.., but that's still a bit impractical. A pity, as I want both devices. More likely they are indeed separate, but perhaps they are timed so closely because Apple needed to get the touch-screen technology to work just right...

I would normally rule this as an outlier rumor (coming out with a major gift item right after Christmas?), but MacRumors--a pretty good site for this kind of intel--gives some credence to this guy, who reportedly predicted the iPod Nano initial release perfectly, when no one else was. That's no guarantee about this guy, but certainly gives one reason to pay attention. Also, Apple did release some pretty big items last January, the Intel iMac and the Macbook Pro--not exactly gift items, but still pretty big stuff nonetheless.

The report also seems a bit more authentic due to the strangeness within: two batteries? And why the huge difference in the price break? One would assume that the higher-end model delivers more than just double the flash memory, that it has most of the "unique things" relative to the cheaper model. Frankly, I don't know about paying $450 for a cell phone; it'd have to be pretty goddamned spectacular. Will Apple really sell 12-20 million units next year at those prices?

Parallels Getting Better

For running Windows on a Mac, Parallels has been a great app, already surpassing Virtual PC beyond the obvious speed capabilities inherent in running Windows on an Intel machine. But now Parallels has gone and outdone itself, having released a new free upgrade, the Beta Build 3036.

The upgrade is chock full of new features, and though there are only a few that are cool to me, they're big ones. The first is drag-and-drop copying. I never got the hang of the shared folder in that I kept forgetting where it was on my Mac, and had trouble making it the same between different versions of Windows in Parallels (okay, I didn't try very hard). But I never liked the whole shared-folder idea anyway, whether it was in Parallels or between different users on a Mac. So now that Parallels allows you to simply drag and drop files between the OS's, I'm a happy camper.

The other improvement I like is the window resizing. One thing Virtual PC always sucked at was getting the size of the window right, especially since I used it on a Mac that connected to a TV; whenever I changed resolutions to match the TV, the Virtual PC window got screwed up. Similarly, with Parallels, to change the actual resolution of the Windows screen, you'd have to effect the change within the Display Properties dialog box, and resizing the window containing the virtual OS would result in a mismatch. But not any more. With Build 3036, you can resize your Windows window to any size you want, and the OS will automatically resize the virtual resolution along with it. Very nifty.

There is one other big change, though not a big one for me: the ability to work with Boot Camp. A bit late for me, as I never installed Boot Camp, so now it would require a complete wipe of my hard drive and reinstalling everything. But if you haven't done either yet, or better are just about to buy a new Mac, you can now install WIndows in Boot Camp and use Parallels, without worrying about having to install Windows twice. As I said, I won't use it (yet), but it's a good option to have.

Among the other changes: redesigned windows/controls, one-click startup via an OS alias (you no longer have to open the interface window and then start Windows), and enhanced networking, graphics and lots of other little stuff. The details are laid out here. There's also a new feature called "Coherency," which is supposed to "show Windows applications as if they were Mac ones," but all I get when I try it is the Windows area going full-screen except for the Mac menu bar, with bad pixelation of the Windows graphics.

Still, for a free upgrade, this version has some big new features.

Update: OK, I see now. What "Coherency" does it to take away the Windows background except for the active app windows and the Task Bar, making the Mac environment appear behind it. If you have the resolution in Parallels set to maximum, then there is no pixelation. Instead, the Task Bar appears at the bottom of the screen, and all active Windows programs appear to be windows open within the Mac OS. However, you cannot hide them with Command-H like other Mac apps; if you do a "hide," then they all disappear, along with the Task bar. Instead, you would have to minimize them. I guess that though it's not quite as good as making Windows apps act like Mac apps, it's probably the next best thing.

Cool Free Mac Apps

Here are some applications for the Mac that I find myself using quite a bit. In no particular order:

Namely

This little app helps you with all the other apps. There are only so many apps you may want in your Dock, and there will be a lot more apps you will want to use. Tired of searching for them in your Applications folder, or wherever you stashed them? Namely will help you open them right quick. Just type the keyboard shortcut you chose for Namely (I have it set to Option-Escape), then start typing in any part of the app's name. Namely will create a list of apps with the text string in their name (like the illustration at top right demonstrates). If the app you want is highlighted at the top of the list, just hit "Return" (or "Enter") and the app will start. If the app is not at the top, either keep typing to eliminate the others, or just use the down arrow to get to the app you want and again hit "Return." Namely becomes invisible when it is not the active application, so it never gets in the way. You can set it to launch at startup so you never have to think about it. You can set the keyboard shortcut it uses from the preferences, and you can even set the color of the search bar. A very small but useful app.

You Control iTunes

I've never been a fan of the multitudinous iTunes controllers--and will admit right up front that I've tried very few--but You Control iTunes is a very nice one, one I've come to like a lot. It resides in your menu bar, so it doesn't intrude on your screen space. But in the four little buttons it puts there, you can play/pause, go back or forward in the playlist, or get drop-down menus that allow control of just about any aspect of iTunes. You can even customize the appearance of the buttons in your menu bar, choosing the best style and color from a long list provided within the app. YCiT also allows for an "overlay" to appear anywhere you want on the screen when a new song starts, showing the Song title, album title, artist, song duration, and even album art (if it's in iTunes). And there are a ton of preferences you can set about what appears and does not appear and how it will appear; it is comfortably customizable. A very well-designed and unobtrusive app that tries harder to help you than it does to impress you with how slick the programmer is. The app is free, though you do have to get a registration code from the web site and enter it into the app.

Skype

Yes, I know that you know about Skype. Did you know that the Mac version with video conferencing is available? And that version 2.0 is out of beta? There's even a new beta (v. 2.5) which allows for audio conference calls between up to 10 people (yourself and 9 others; video is still limited to two people). Skype works well between Macs and PCs, and allows you to conference by text, audio, and video chat, and it's all free, so long as it's computer-to-computer. You can also opt to pay for the ability to dial any telephone in the world, for prices cheaper than most if not all other call plans.

Also, Skype's audio quality is much better than standard, it seems. My dad and I tried Skype as well as Apple's iChat and AIM, and of the three, Skype's audio quality stood out tremendously. So if you thought Skype for Mac wasn't ready yet, it is--go get it.

JEDict

For those of you studying Japanese: JEDict is the best Mac client for Monash University's public and free J-E/E-J Kanji dictionary database. The app will serve as a humble Japanese/English and Kanji dictionary, allowing for standard lookup and Kanji finding by radical or term search. It's not a really detailed dictionary--"definitions" are mainly lists of synonymous words, and there are no examples of use--but it will serve in most cases, or at least help some. The ability of the app to automatically insert whatever is in the clipboard to the search window is a nice feature. Version 4 is a nice upgrade to the interface. And it's the best dictionary you're likely to get for free!

Onyx

Onyx is an excellent free app that will allow you to set preferences in your system that Apple has made possible but has not provided the interface for. You can show/hide invisible files and folders, turn off Finder animations and Dock special effects that might take up unnecessary CPU time, and change Dock preferences Apple doesn't let you do (like aligning the dock to one side, or even putting it at the top of your screen!). You can change the scroll bar arrows, change the file format for screen captures, and even deactivate the Dashboard if it irritates you--or you can enable it's "Developer mode," which lets widgets exist outside the Dashboard. You can also do a lot more stuff that you might not even understand, including regular (and automated) maintenance, like repairing permissions. TinkerTool is an easy-to-use but powerful little utility that'll let you customize your Mac even more. It does more than the free version of TinkerTool--more similar to TinkerTool's big brother, which costs money.

Burn

Want to burn CDs and DVDs just like Toast, but don't want to buy or pirate Toast? Burn is a great secondary option. It gives you most of what you're likely to use in Toast, but in a nice, free, open-source package. Make Data discs, Audio CDs or MP3 DVDs, make video discs as VCDs, SVCDs, DVDs, or DivX discs, and burn disc images on discs. The interface is simple, simpler than Toast. And while it may not have all the features you may want, it certainly has enough--as a free app!--to be useful.

Burn is one of a multitude of different apps on SourceForge, a haven for open-source software projects.

Aurora

This is an app that I just found, but it seems to work and I plan to use it a lot. Aurora is an alarm clock for your Mac, using iTunes to wake you up. Like You Control iTunes, Aurora is one of many such apps, but I like this one now that I've found it. I haven't tried too many others, but the ones I did try out, I never really liked that much, and some I couldn't get to work right. Aurora works, and works well.

You can set any number of alarms that will activate at the days and times you set (you can select any and/or all of the days of the week, and set them to recur), even waking the Mac from sleep or even starting up the Mac if it is powered off (I haven't tried that last one yet). You can set the Playlist that will start up, how the volume is handled, and what window will come to the front when the alarm goes off.

VideoLAN - VLC Media Player

I'm pretty sure I've mentioned this one before as well, but it's a great app that you should use (including Windows users). It's a media player that plays a lot more different file types than almost any other player out there. It still can't handle Real Player files, but just about anything else is game, including DVDs. In fact, depending on the DVD drive in your computer, it might even be able to play DVDs from any region. It's also unobtrusive and simple in design. There is one feature it lacks which I wish it didn't: the ability to move frame-by-frame using the arrow keys (or by any means at all, as far as I can figure out). Other than that, it's golden--and you should have it handy even if you prefer another media player, just in case you come up against something you can't play otherwise.

QuickTime Video Playback Enablers

If you really like QuickTime and don't want to abandon it, then here are two system add-ons which will make WMV and DivX files play in QuickTime, something they cannot do normally. The first is Flip4Mac, which will enable Windows Media Video files in QuickTime. The free version allows you to play the files and save them for playback on your Mac, but you can't export as a different file type, even in QT Pro--that requires a paid version. But the free version will allow you to see any of these files, and it will even work inline within your browsers; it is a system extension which shows up in your System Preferences pane.

The second one is Perian, an open-source plug-in for the QuickTime player that enables it to play AVIs, Flash files, and a lot more.

There are a lot more apps I could list, but I'll stop there for now. If you know of better apps than these, add your input in the comments; otherwise, just enjoy!

Cool Mac Features You May Not Know About: Zoom

It's been a while since I did this--I've been busy and have fallen behind--but here's number three in the series on cool but little-known Mac features. It's one I use a lot myself: the zoom feature. Not many people know about this one, because it's tucked away under "Universal Access," and you might think that you don't need anything there unless you're handicapped in one way or another; it is intended for Mac users who have vision problems. But the zoom feature has been a lifesaver for me.

My main use of the feature is in class. I teach some computer classes, and all I can show the students is what they see on the TV. Now, Macs are already very good about using a TV as a second monitor, either mirroring (showing the same thing on both screens), or with two separate but connected screens. The problem, however, is with resolution.

Computer monitors are like HDTV screens; in fact, my current screen is 1200 pixels tall, which makes it higher-def than a 1080p TV set, the highest-quality HDTV you can have right now. But when you show your computer to a class on a TV set, it's suddenly low-def again--just 484 lines (the rest of the 525 lines in NTSC are used for other data). Plus, an NTSC screen is interlaced, which means that every time the TV screen "flashes" a frame, it's really a half-frame--every other line, filled in by the other half of the lines 1/60th of a second later. Interlacing, along with the fewer lines of resolution, makes the text go fuzzy.

Add to that the fact that my students sit far from the TV and you get a situation where they cannot read a thing on the picture I show them--unless I zoom in. That's where the zoom feature comes in handy for me, whenever I want to show more of the screen, with good enough clarity for everyone to see what's going on.

Below is a movie I made (low-res, but you can get the idea) of zoom being used on my computer. I start out on this blog's page, and use my standard setting, which zooms in double each time I press the F11 key (the original shortcut was Option-Command-+ and -, but I opted for a one-key solution). I then switch to the System Preferences, and demonstrate how you can set the feature to zoom a lot more hit a single keystroke--first 10x, then 20x, and then a more reasonable 4x. Hit another key (F12 for me) and it zooms out. The movie is in QuickTime format, 1.2 MB, 320x240 (it's sharper than the preview image); click the image to see it in a pop-up window, or click here for it to take over this window.

It is ironic that I have to use my Mac to teach Windows to my classes, using Virtual PC. I'd love to use Parallels, but my laptop is a G4, so not yet. But I cannot use a Windows machine because the zoom feature in Windows sucks horribly. It divides the screen in half horizontally, with the bottom half being regular size, and the top half being zoomed. It is terribly distracting and confusing, as you're not sure where to look. If you are used to the zoom in Windows, you'll be blown away by the elegance and simplicity of zoom on the Mac.

One drawback: in Virtual PC, the zoom feature works (some Mac OS elements do), but it will not follow the cursor--instead, it stays locked in the center of the screen. It's still functional, though. With Parallels, the Mac zoom works only if your mouse is outside the Windows environment, but it is similarly functional.

Not only is the zoom good for my classes, it's also useful in daily use. My 24" monitor is a monster, and often I feel much more comfortable zooming in to read small stuff, or narrow columns of text many blogs have.

If you have a Mac and want to turn the zoom feature on, you can use the keyboard shortcut Option-Command-8 to activate it, and then Option-Command-+ (plus) to zoom in, and Option-Command-- (minus) to zoom out. To change these rather clumsy keyboard shortcuts, go to System Preferences, open "Keyboard & Mouse," select the "Keyboard Shortcuts," and change the "Zoom" settings under "Universal Access."

You can also control the feature by going to System Preferences, opening "Universal Access," and make sure that you're in the "Seeing" tab.

The Not-So-Mighty Mouse

I love the new 24-inch iMac I got. My only complaint is that I can't turn the brightness down enough, but there are workarounds to that, and everything else about the main body of the machine is fantastic. The wireless keyboard is excellent (except that I still haven't gotten used to the Delete key not being at the top right, but that's a training issue). Overall, it's probably the best computer I've ever had.

Except for the mouse. I am seriously thinking of ditching the damned thing.

When I bought the Mac, I opted for the wireless keyboard and mouse. I do not regret going for the wireless option; I think the "Mighty Mouse" would be even worse with a wire. It's the other "features" that annoy me, which add to the reputation Apple has for making sucky mice.

When I got it, I wanted to give it a chance, and at first, my impressions were actually good. For the first week or so, I enjoyed it, ascribing its problems to adaptation errors.

The scroll ball (instead of a scroll wheel) was too tiny for my tastes, but I did like the fact that it can scroll omnidirectionally. But now the danged thing is dropping out, making it hard to scroll; when I scroll down, it usually goes but sometimes has no effect, before suddenly cutting in again, leading to over-scrolling. A few days ago, scrolling down didn't even work at all, until I knocked the mouse against the desk, which brought it back--never a good sign.

And even without a mechanical malfunction, the improbability of scrolling exactly up or down leads to side-scrolling to the right, shifting the content on the left out of view. At the very least, the scroll ball takes getting used to.

But that's the least of my dislikes. The all-in-one seamless surface leads to problems with clicking. Apple opted for rocking the body of the mouse to discern between left- and right-clicking. But all too often, this doesn't work right. Maybe two or three times a day, a right-click registers as a left-click, and vice-versa. At first I though I was clicking wrong, but then I paid closer attention and realized that I was not, and sometimes I had to push on the far side of the mouse to get the correct click to register. Bad design. When I right-click a link to open a web page in a new tab, I don't want to find that I've left-clicked and loaded the new page in the same window, or a new window, either of which would require backtrack and correction.

And the side buttons? A horrible idea. Apple placed a "third button" on both sides of the mouse; you press inward with your thumb on the left and another finger on the right to activate the button. You either have to use your weak ring finger to apply more force than it's used to, or you have to reposition your hand to use your index finger, either way in a manner that is inconsistent with moving and manipulating the mouse as normal, making a click-and-drag a messy, uncomfortable, and haphazard affair.

I know that Steve Jobs has a psychological problem with a mouse which is not seamless and pretty, and demands that the Apple mouse be aesthetic in a certain way. And I like good style--except when it interferes with functionality. That should be the tipping point, but Jobs can't handle that for some reason, and that's what has led to Apple having crappy mice.

So when I go back to the U.S., I'm going to be looking for a new mouse, caring a lot less about how it looks than I do about how it works.

SheepShaver

One of the drawbacks of the new Intel Macs is that you can't run Classic apps on them--at least not officially. That's where SheepShaver comes in. It's actually a Classic Mac emulator for Windows, Linux, and other OS's--including Mac OS X. And if there are Classic apps you need to run, this will allow you to get an Intel Mac. Well, probably; I haven't figured out all the kinks in the system yet. But I just started tonight...

I tried to use SheepShaver a few times before, but was stopped cold by one of my pet peeves: crappy documentation. As I've said before, I absolutely hate it when people go to so much trouble to build a really cool app that you'd love to use--but they write the instructions so only people who know tons about running a command-line interface can make heads or tails of it. It's like writing a really cool novel--in Aramaic. With no translations available.

Well, fortunately, a translation exists for SheepShaver, and what makes it maddening is that the instructions are so easy. Easy enough that you wonder how the app's makers could have been so brilliant as to make an app like this, and yet be so stupid as to write pages of documentation without creating so simple and easy-to-follow a instruction list as this guy did.

What it comes down to is this: you download SheepShaver. Then you download something called a ROM (don't ask). You need to have a Classic OS installer disk (OS 8.5 to 9.0.4, if you use OS X); a universal installer (not specific to the Mac you bought) would be best, but a restore disc can be used as well, as it turns out). Run the SheepShaver app, locate the ROM, create a virtual disk, and start it up.

Now why couldn't they put it so simply?

Of course, there's a bit more to it than that, but the Uneasy Silence guy covered all that the average user would need to know. And if you want it to work perfectly, then you'll still have to go to a support forum and check out fixes people have come up with. For example, I still can't get the audio to work--a big glitch if I want to use that sound editing app which works so well in OS 9. And for some reason, the screen redraw is slow as molasses if I use a large resolution.

As for overall usefulness, there are not really too many apps I need to use, but a few that I'd like to I kind of miss--old games, for instance, and the sound editing app I came to really like. I still have my G4 PowerBook, so Classic still runs on that, but sometimes I want the big screen and a more comfortable computing environment. But this would likely be more useful for my dad, who needs to run a Classic app for the work he does--one that won't ever get upgraded to Mac OS X.

Virus Author Admits Mac Is Hard to Hack

While Symantec yet again rang the bogus virus bell, trying to alarm people about Mac security to get them to buy Symantec software, the person who actually wrote the proof-of-concept code admitted in the source code itself that he had too much trouble making the virus work in the real world.

...the author had expressed what appears to be frustration at trying to make the virus effective on Apple's platform.

"In the source code, which is a mish-mash of stuff, there is a comment where the author says 'so many problems for so little code'," he said. "So it does look as though virus writers, fortunately, still have a way to go before they are able to write Mac viruses with the proficiency and fluidity that they can for Windows."

The Macarena "virus," despite the author's efforts, resulted in nothing more than the source code, with no "vector," no workable method of spreading the virus. The malicious code simply exploits an old UNIX flaw, but the author apparently could not get the exploit past Mac OS X's defenses.

In order for Macarena to work as written, one would have to deliberately find a web site with the source code, download it, compile it, and then run it in order for anything to happen. No wonder Symantec rates the code's "Threat Containment" as "easy" and the "Distribution Level" as "low."

Yet Another Not-Virus

Symantec is crying "Wolf" again, this time about a virus it has named "OSX.Macarena." It is more of the same as before--a proof-of-concept release of source code. It does not carry a malicious payload, nor is there any evidence that it was released in the wild. Symantec's "detailed" report is curiously undetailed; as usual, they don't simply say it doesn't exist in the wild, instead they only say there were "0-49" infections, the virus was on "0-2" web sites, and that "geographical distribution" is "low." Which makes it sounds like it exists in the wild when it doesn't.

As usual, people are interpreting this as yet another harbinger of the impending release of the first-ever harmful virus in the wild targeted at Mac OS X. Since it is proof-of-concept, the idea goes, it will be easy for someone to take that shell and pack a harmful piece of code inside. I can't speak to that intelligently as I have zero experience with coding, but it occurs to me that these proof-of-concept shells have been around for the better part of a year now and none have been re-engineered to carry malicious code, as was predicted every time. What's the hold-up?

As before, there's still no need to rush out and buy anti-virus software, unless you want to be really, really safe.

Cool Mac Features You May Not Know About: Dictionary

Mac owners might not be aware that a feature introduced in Tiger (OS X 10.4) is a built-in Dictionary and Thesaurus, based on the New Oxford American Dictionary (2nd Edition) and the Oxford American Writers Thesaurus. If you are aware of the app, you might not be fully familiar with the extent it is integrated into the system.

First, there is the app itself:

Its use is pretty much straightforward and self-explanatory. Of course, it is handy and convenient to have a complete and detailed dictionary app on hand, especially if it is a free one that comes with the OS. But you can access the dictionary in other ways as well. One is via the app's Dashboard widget:

This might not impress you, however, as you may not be a Dashboard fan, and it is just as fast to open the Dictionary program directly, unless you use the Dashboard frequently or simply prefer it outright.

But there is at least one more way to access the dictionary app which is very, very cool. Apple made the decision to integrate the dictionary into the system, and allows for it to be applied "inline," within any app written to accept it. Take Safari, for example. Let's say that you want a definition of a word you see on a web page. You might expect that you would have to either type the word into the Dictionary app, or select and copy the word from the page, open the dictionary app, and paste it into the lookup box. Apple's integration cuts that down to a simple keyboard shortcut.

Just type the shortcut Command-Control-D (you can customize that--I changed it to a simple F-key) while the cursor is floating over the word in question:

And viola, the definition pops up in a little inline window. Cool!

To get the thesaurus:

Select that, and you get:

If you click on the "More..." button at bottom right, the Dictionary app will open to the word you selected.

As I mentioned, it will work in any app that is coded to accept the feature, which unfortunately means that any app written before Tiger was released might not allow it to work (e.g., Microsoft Word 2004--though that particular app has its own built-in dictionary).

Where it is written in, it is a great feature, executed beautifully by Apple. My blog editor (Ecto) allows it to work, and I use it constantly, particularly the thesaurus element--very helpful when I have used the word "dishonest" too many times when writing about Bush, for example, and I need other ways to say the same thing.

FYI: fraudulent, corrupt, swindling, cheating, double-dealing; underhanded, crafty, cunning, devious, treacherous, unfair, unjust, dirty, unethical, immoral, dishonorable, untrustworthy, unscrupulous, unprincipled, amoral; criminal, illegal, unlawful; false, untruthful, deceitful, deceiving, lying, mendacious; informal: crooked, hinky, shady, tricky, sharp, shifty; literary: perfidious.

Video iPod

A lot of the time, future Apple tech is revealed by patent applications, so the rumor community keeps a close eye on the patent office. One application that Apple made recently had this image:

One of the things I had wondered about was how a full-screen, touch-screen video iPod would be able to maintain a clear enough screen to allow for enjoyable viewing, if one's hands were constantly touching it. This is the answer.

Here's the way it would work: instead of the user touching the screen, one would touch the frame ("bezel") surrounding the screen. The circles around the edge of the device are not physical buttons, but rather touch-sensitive areas. For example, the three circles at the top of each of the screens shown above would correspond to the controls shown just below them on the screen itself. When you see a control on the iPod video screen, just touch the part of the screen frame closest to the button, and that will do the job. The buttons appear and change dynamically to suit the image on the screen and even the orientation of the device (if it's in portrait or landscape mode).

In this way, the user has full control without physical buttons, but the full-face screen remains smudge-free. A pretty clever design, I think--though it belies prior patents that have the virtual clickwheel displayed on the screen. The mockup below shows the exact hardware design shown in these patents, but has the virtual clickwheel.

More drawings from the patent application can be found here.

Cool Mac Features You May Not Know About: Keyboard Shortcuts

Well, if you read this blog, then you know that I am a bit of a Mac advocate (please stifle coughs of scorn at the understatement, thank you). In order to show why I feel this way, I thought I should start a series on Mac features that many don't know about which would help you understand why I like the OS so much. Some of these might even be bits a lot of Mac users don't know about, especially beginners who haven't fully figured out the system yet.

The first feature is one that is probably under-used: the ability to change and create keyboard shortcuts. I use keyboard shortcuts a lot; they represent a way to do things a lot more quickly than with menus or toolbar buttons, which require you to transfer your hands from the keyboard to the mouse--a seemingly trivial task, but one that can slow you down more than you might realize.

One problem with keyboard shortcuts is that they don't always exist for things that you want to do, or they might not be shortcuts you want to use. Many programs allow you to configure the shortcuts within that app, but many don't, and there are holes in others. Mac OS X allows you to configure shortcuts in a relatively simple way.

The feature is found under System Preferences (found in your Apple Menu, at the left end of the menu bar at the top of your screen). Open the "Keyboard and Mouse" preference pane, and in the tabs along the top, select "Keyboard Shortcuts."

You'll see a list of most of the system-level keyboard shortcuts. Not only is this a way to edit the shortcuts, it could also serve as a handy list of shortcuts if you forget them, and it might even put you on to discovering some features of the Mac OS you weren't even aware of before.

From this list, you can activate or deactivate shortcuts, and by clicking on a command and typing a new shortcut combination, you can change any of the shortcuts to your liking. A yellow warning triangle will appear next to a shortcut if it conflicts with an existing one.

But there is an extra, very useful element to this feature that I think many people miss: you can use this preference pane to set any keyboard shortcut to any command in any application. For example, I use Microsoft Excel (hopefully not for too much longer). One action I take very often is to hide and reveal rows and columns in a spreadsheet. These commands have no keyboard shortcuts. Now, Microsoft Office allows you to set shortcuts using the Customize dialog box--but for some reason, hide and unhide rows and columns is not included, so you can't set a shortcut for them. Considering that these commands are embedded in a submenu, it's a major hassle to navigate the menu and submenu each and every time I want to hide or unhide something.

In OS X's Keyboard Shortcuts feature, at the bottom of the list of shortcuts, there is an additional option:

See the plus and minus buttons? If you click on the "plus" button," it will activate a dialog box:

First, select the application you want to affect (though you can leave it at "all applications," and any menu item of the same name will be universally affected). Then type in the exact name of the menu item, and then type the shortcut you want to create. Capitalization, spaces and even ellipses must be faithfully typed.

After making your changes, start/restart the app you changed. The new shortcut will appear in the app's menu.

This can be applied to any program. Another example is a simple text editing program I use, called iText; the app is very nice, but for some reason, they did not include a shortcut for "Hide iText" in the app's main menu. OS X's Keyboard Shortcuts feature allowed me to create one.

Yet Another Misleading "Mac Attack" Story in the Media

CNN is running a high-profile piece today titled, "Security analysts: Mac attacks rare but may rise." The URL for the piece contains the words "apple virus."

Their evidence? The story that a few iPods were shipped with a virus. A virus that doesn't affect Macs, or iPods, but the Windows OS only. This is a "Mac attack"?

But they give more evidence:

Oliver Friedrichs, director of security response at Symantec, a leading anti-virus software vendor, said 72 vulnerabilities were discovered in the Mac's OS X operating system in 2006, up from 19 in 2004.

And Symantec identified six threats of malicious code written for the Mac OS X operating system in the first half of 2006, versus zero in the second half of 2005 and two the year before that.

In other words, the same old re-heated misinformation spread by a company that wants to frighten Mac users into buying their unnecessary software. Vulnerabilities are all good and well, but every OS has them, and they don't mean much if they are not exploited before they are discovered; it means that Apple is doing a good job of finding and patching them. So far, no vulnerability on OS X has been successfully exploited in any harmful way. As for the "threats of malicious code" (just threats? not actual malware?), whatever "malicious code" has been released has been in proof-of-concept form only--never in the wild, never harmful, and never released in a way that could infect more than just a handful of machines. The day will come when the first piece of malicious code written for Mac OS X which actually does some damage will spread to more than just a handful of Macs. But that day has not yet come.

Ironically, the fact that the Windows virus was able to get onto the iPods (via a third-party contractor, not directly by Apple) is a testament to the weakness of the Windows OS, not the Mac OS. That iPod-virus story has no place in an article about Mac security, except to bolster the fact that the Mac itself is secure.

And yet people misuse the news, like this writer (who clearly has a chip on his shoulder and a stick up his butt about Macs), who speaks of "the myth of total Mac invulnerability to viruses and spyware" and "self-righteously invincible Mac users" who believe they will never be hit by a virus. Ironically,hit s view is not held by Mac users so much as it is held by Windows users who are contemptuous of Mac users. They hear Mac users express pride and satisfaction about the relative security on the Mac and resentfully exaggerate that to mean "Macs are perfect, and will never have any problems at all." As I have mentioned on many occasions, and any knowing Mac user will tell you, the Mac is not invulnerable--it simply has better security than Windows. It benefits also from its current obscurity, but even were it to reach 50% market share, it would still not get as much malware as Windows does.

Video iPod in December, iPhone in January? Meanwhile, Vista Sucks More

According to this site, the touchscreen video iPod will be out before the end of the year, possibly in time for holiday purchasing. The writer claims to have spoken to an executive from a third-party iPod accessory company, who says they are kept in the loop by Apple. One of their new products, he reportedly said, has been made for the 6th-generation iPod, or the full-screen touch-control iPod long rumored to be in production, and universally expected to debut by early next year. The iPod would, hopefully, have "480p" resolution--that is, the vertical resolution would be 480 pixels, which is essentially the same as any pre-HDTV television set--even better, as progressive scan (the "p" in "480p") delivers twice the video information of interlaced scan (what old-style TVs offer).

Take the rumor for what it's worth...

Meanwhile, Microsoft takes a cheap shot at Mac users: they have just released their licensing information for Vista, and it appears that they are forbidding use of Vista Home version in virtualization applications, such as Parallels. That means that if you want to run Vista in virtual mode, you'll have to pay for the Business or Ultimate editions, starting at $300.

Is there some actual, legitimate reason for doing this, or are they just being assholes?

Spanning Sync

For those of you out there who use Macs and like both iCal and Google Calendars, there's some very good news: a company called "Spanning Partners" is developing an Internet application that will "seamlessly" sync the two. It's called Spanning Sync, and the public beta will begin in about a week. You can sign up to be notified to join. One site says that only 100 people will be allowed into the initial beta testing, but I can't be sure that's the real limit.

Still, whenever it becomes available, it'll be good news. I use iCal, but have trouble syncing it--I don't have a .mac account (the usual way to sync iCal between two Macs), nor would I want to pay $25 for the only working shareware I could find for the purpose. But to be able to sync with Google Calendar (and hopefully, through that, between my two Macs) would be great. if I could also share my calendar with my students and let them actively make appointments, which would then show up automatically in iCal... that would be a cool app. So long as it doesn't become too costly in the post-beta releases.

I'll let you know when I find out more about this.

Update: the limit of 100 testers is confirmed; they will add that many people to the testing program to see how their servers react to the load. If everything goes well, they'll add more people in groups of 100 until all who have signed up are added. Of course, this begs the question: why would this app put a load on their servers? The app is supposed to sync your Mac's iCal with the Google Calendar web site; how does this app's web site get involved?

Update II: Answering some of my questions, a person claiming to be involved in the project said that: (a) this software would allow for syncing iCal on different Macs via the Google Calendar; (b) changes in one calendar (additions, edits, deletions) would be automatically reflected in all linked calendars; and (c) the software will be pay software, the price being "less than .Mac [$100] and more than free." That leaves a huge space for the fee, of course, which is not too encouraging...

Extraordinarily Stupid Person Buys Mac, Can't Figure Out Squat

Man. If you know Macs, and want to see how stupid a person can be, check out this article. I had to check the site's main page to find out that it was not, in fact, a parody magazine--the guy's take on the Mac was so ridiculously wrong on so many counts, it seriously looked like a spoof. I've fallen for those before. But this time, it's for real--this guy is just plain dumb.

Let's go over the article's high points. First, a preview of his gripes from the second paragraph:

I was suckered in by the hype about freedom from viruses, simplicity of computing and versatility. Instead, I bought a boat anchor that can't view Web sites properly, is not compatible with Microsoft Word and can run only dumbed-down versions of regular software.

How do you respond to that? The Mac is not easy to use? He addresses that later on, but we'll see that his main complaint is that the Mac is not identical to Windows XP. Security he dismisses out of hand, as if it were not worth anything. "Not compatible with MS Word"? And "dumbed down versions" of software? But as I said, that's just a preview. Let's get down to his real gems:

I'll be lucky to get half of the $4,552.71 I paid for the Mac on May 21, 2006.

Here's a real sign of his cluelessness: he bought a pre-Intel professional-level Mac G5 just a few months before the Intel-based machines were released. That's like buying a brand-new, top-of-the-line VHS player today--you're buying into the old technology just a short time before it becomes outdated.

What's more, why did he buy a top-of-the-line desktop system? His previous computer was an IBM ThinkPad, for crying out loud. It sounds like he loaded it up with massive amounts of RAM as well--and the costs would not be less for a similarly-equipped Windows PC (a common fallacy in this article--complain about the Mac for having the same downsides as every other computer out there). Why not get the Intel iMac 20-incher, already out by that time? It would have cost less than half as much, and almost certainly would have met his needs--probably more so, as it could run Windows as well. And all he talks about is running Word, PowerPoint, and the browser--no 3-D gaming or video editing. Clearly he bought the wrong computer. The iMac is plenty fast for his stated needs. This guy clearly did not do his market research, at all. And this guy works as a marketing consultant?

I liked the sexy FireWire with its zippy transfer speeds, although I used it only to transfer data to my external hard drive.

Another sign of cluelessness. Firewire is 400 Mbps. USB 2, which has been out for a few years now and is standard on all computers including Macs, is 480 Mbps. Maybe he's talking about the Firewire-b port, which goes up to 800 Mbps--but that speed is only of use if you have super-fast peripherals, like a heavy-duty RAID array. Video editing pros need it, for example. A law firm marketing consultant, though? What for? The hard drive he mentioned was likely an out-of-the-box consumer drive, which uses only a fraction of the Firewire speeds.

The signs of doom were there on day one, but I ignored them. I pretended that I liked the one button mouse. I quickly started using click + command keys (and other keyboard shortcuts). I really missed the little scrolling wheel in the center of the mouse.

What the hell is he talking about? First, the Power Macs selling in May 2006 came with the Mighty Mouse, a 4-button mouse with a scroll ball (more versatile than a scroll wheel). How idiotic do you have to be to not realize there are three extra buttons on your mouse? Did this guy read no manual and speak to no Mac user?

Second, even if he was given a one-button mouse, he could easily just buy any USB mouse out there and it would work fine. What is wrong with PC users that they can't buy any mouse that was not shipped with the computer? I got a Windows machine and didn't like the old-style ball mouse they gave me, so I went out and bought a laser mouse. It's not brain surgery.

I put up with the fact that the HP printer, which I had purchased on the recommendation of an Apple Store, would work about 50 percent of the time with the Mac. I was constantly deleting print jobs and starting them over.

I have an HP printer, and it works beautifully. In fact, I don't even have to install the driver software, even if the specific driver for my printer is not installed in OS X; the Mac simply sees the printer, and makes up its own driver. I have only had trouble with network printers, and only in some cases even then. My PowerBook G4 easily connected to and used a Fuji-Xerox color copy machine on my office network, after just 30 seconds of setup. You have to be pretty inept not to be able to print correctly from a Mac.

I noticed it was slow; I saw that stupid spinning colored wheel a lot. The Mac would hang up; the TV ads said Macs didn't do that.

Here's another sign something was unusually wrong, or else he's massively exaggerating. Even though it was pre-Intel, the top-of-the-line Power Mac G5 was lightning fast. What was he trying to do that got him the spinning cursor "a lot"? He never reveals this. I suspect the exaggeration explanation. As for hangs and crashes, that depends on what software he uses, in what combinations. Maybe the guy was loading up with beta software; crashes with finished software are rare, at least in my experience. Again, he's probably exaggerating; frustrated people with a grudge do that a lot.

I did like the Finder because it was quick in locating files, but it would turn up a lot of false hits. It was comparable to the Google Desktop searcher on my PC.

It's called "refining your search terms." False hits are a problem endemic to all search engines, PC or Mac. So how does this show the Mac is worse? And does this guy not appreciate all the advantages in Spotlight over Windows alternatives, even despite the software's version-1 shortcomings?

What drove me nuts was that I would open Word for Mac and couldn't delete files while I was in Word. There is no File | Delete option.

This is something that I suspect a lot of people would not recognize, and this guy does not even correctly identify it. He's talking about the ability in Windows to manipulate files and folders from within the navigation dialog box--say, when you do an "Open" or "Save" command, and you want to look for where to open or save something. It's not a Word feature, it's part of the operating system.

It gets better:

So the documents took up space on my hard drive, until someone told me I had to find the document in Finder and then move it into the trash from there. This seemed stupid to me; I just wanted to highlight a file and tap "delete."

How dumb is that? This guy never caught on to the fact that in both Windows and the Mac that the standard way of manipulating files was in folder windows?

More amazing, without the ability to delete files in a dialog box, he would never delete any of his files? And by the way, how is his hard drive filling up with Word files? My superpowers of observation tell me he's exaggerating an inconvenience again. Create more folders and organize, Pointdexter.

Look, I'll admit right here and now that I like that ability in Windows, and would like to see the Mac pick it up--but to be chained to it so absolutely that he could think of no other way to function is so computer-illiterate to be laughable--at least for a guy who puts on the airs of writing an article about it in the media. Or are complete N00bs commonly writing tech articles now?

The really vapid thing here is that even after he's told how to do it the standard way, he sees it as a chore that is somehow more difficult, when it is practically the same thing, just in a different location. Instead of opening a dialog box in Word, just open a window in the Finder. Navigation is virtually the same--easier on a Mac, in fact. To get rid of the file, instead of tapping "Delete," tap "Command-delete." I know it's rocket science, but get with the program.

Word files transferred from the Mac were missing pictures. PowerPoint files transferred from the Mac would lose their formatting. PCs and Macs are not compatible, regardless of what they say.

Interesting--I transfer Word and PowerPoint files with my students, who use PCs, all the time, and I never have these problems. My guess though: the pictures that disappeared were in a file format that his version of Office for the Mac could read, but the Windows version of Office could not. I would guess that he saved the file using Office for Mac 2004, and tried to open it in Office for Windows 2000. I know that causes this kind of problem a lot. In short, he's probably whining about the Mac because he's too thick to figure out that the software version is different. This is true on Windows-to-Windows compatibility as well; it's a universal software version incompatibility, not an OS shortcoming. As for the loss of formatting, I'd be willing to bet he used a font on the Mac that didn't exist on the PC--which would be his error, not the computer's.

The multiple clicking to accomplish simple tasks was a constant annoyance. Things I could do with a PC in two keystrokes took four or five clicks with the Mac. To do a "fast print" required clicking File, Print, find Copies & Pages, click Paper Type/Quality, click Normal and finally clicking Fast Draft. And there was no way to leave the setting as the default. I had to do it manually every time.

He's basing the ease-of-use of the OS on a single printing task? How about doing a find-file between the two OS's? A far more common task where the Mac does in one stroke what takes five or more for the PC. How about mounting and ejecting USB flash memory sticks? How about creating a new folder within a file & folder window? How about changing screen resolutions? How about setting up printers? I could go on and on; the list of things a Mac does faster is a lot longer than the list of things you can do faster on a PC.

Doing a simple screen capture was an immense chore. On a PC you just press Alt and tap PrtScr. With the Mac I had to download and launch special programs to accomplish this simple task.

So, doing a Command-shift-3 is an "immense chore"? (By the way, a screen capture on Windows in not what he says it is--he's describing a window capture, not a screen capture!) This guy is wailing on the Mac because he's too damned lazy to even look up the keyboard shortcuts? (Three clicks: System Preferences, Keyboard & Mouse, Keyboard Shortcuts. Boom.) The same shortcuts he could easily customize on a Mac but not in Windows? You don't have to open the "Grab" application (which, by the way, comes pre-installed on your Mac) to do a screen grab on the Mac; that app is mostly good for "timed" screen grabs, so you can get a picture of the cursor in action, pulling down menus and such.

In fact, the Mac is easier and more versatile here than Windows. In Windows, you only have the keyboard shortcuts "Print screen" (to capture the whole screen) and "Alt-Print screen" (to capture the image of a window or dialog box). On the Mac, there are six keyboard shortcuts (most of them customizable), for capturing the whole screen, a window/dialog box/any-object-selected, or a custom-sized area you define, and to save it to the clipboard or as a file on the Desktop. With a free utility, you can specify where the file is saved and what image format it is saved as.

Here's a perfect example of the Mac being way better than Windows, but this guy is just too dumb to realize it.

I didn't even bother with the Mac's iCal or Mail, which required me to buy an @mac.com address.

Wrong. Mail can work freely with any email account, just like any other software. iCal works fine without .Mac as well; the mac.com address only serves as a convenient way to publicly publish your calendars and sync them between multiple computers--things you can achieve anyway if you have a bit of technical knowledge.

Instead, I went straight to Outlook for Mac. A lot of the software for Mac -- such as AOL for Mac OS X -- was dumbed down and missing may features of the current PC versions.

AOL for Mac was his prime example of dumbed-down software? And the outdated and feature-poor Outlook was an example of better software than what comes with a Mac? What a buffoon.

For me the killer was the Web browser. Safari simply cannot read Flash. It is, quite simply, a second-rate browser.

That's funny, my version of Safari reads Flash fine. In fact, I had to get special software to selectively disable Flash animations on Safari, they annoy me so much! Did he try downloading the plug-in? As for my Mac, I didn't need to--the Flash plug-in was included when I installed OS X.

Now, it is true that some web designers lazily create their sites so they only work cleanly for Internet Explorer, but that's the web designers' fault, not the Mac's. You'll find the same difficulties with Firefox. It's not anyone else's fault that some web designers are exclusive because they don't want to work hard enough to check their pages on different browsers and do the necessary touch-up work. Besides, finding a web site that doesn't work in Safari is not an everyday experience; aside from a Google app or two, in fact, I can't recall encountering a non-functional page in Safari for some time now.

I even called Apple headquarters and asked when a better version would be available and was told that Apple is in no hurry to improve it.

Yeah. Right. I'm sure that's exactly what they told him. I'd bet a lot that he's either lying about even calling them, was unable to explain his problem clearly because of his ineptitude, or that he's massively exaggerating again--or the last two combined.

On the suggestions of friends, I downloaded Netscape and Firefox, which were no better.

I rest my case.

I scraped along with Internet Explorer 5.0 for Mac, and then discovered in 2006 that Microsoft would no longer support the Mac version.

This explains why his browsing experience on the Mac sucked--he used the crappiest possible browser, in a version several years out of date, just because he couldn't figure out how to play Flash animations on a web page he visited in Safari. What a loser. A coworker of mine emailed me a few weeks ago to complain of web sites not working and that his browsing experience on the Mac sucked big-time. He was amazed when I accurately guessed that he was using Internet Explorer, and after I got him started on Safari, he had no complaints.

I run several Web sites, all optimized for IE 5.5 or higher.

Here's another clue. He's one of the lazy designers who "optimizes" for Internet Explorer. He apparently does not know that "optimizing for Explorer" means that instead of using universal coding so that every browser can read the page, he instead codes specifically for the Explorer browser in an exclusive way that simply shuts out visitors not using Microsoft's software. Then he whines about Safari "not working."

I couldn't operate my own Web sites with the Mac. That was the straw that broke the camel's back.

Say what? How, exactly, could he not operate a web site using a Mac? I do it just fine. Oh, I bet I know--he probably still uses Microsoft FrontPage and can't find a Mac version. Outside of that, there's no reason he can't use a Mac for this, not that I can figure--and I run several web sites myself just fine, thank you.

Then the hard drive croaked on me after only three months of owning the machine. I couldn't tell what was going wrong and had to hire someone for $125 an hour to come over and tell me what the heck was happening. Apple replaced it for free, but I became leery of what other hardware would fail unexpectedly.

Here's a clue: hardware can fail on any machine. You expect the Mac to never have hardware problems? How does the fact that a hard drive failed make the Mac any different than a Windows PC?

Furthermore, you had to hire a guy at $125 an hour to tell you that your hard drive wouldn't work? And you claim the expertise of running several web sites? The author claimed he went to an Apple Store before buying his printer, which means he had access to a Genius Bar. Sure, it's a pain to haul the big Power Mac chassis into the store, but it has those big handles on it, and surely it would be worth saving $125 an hour?

This is the definitive Ugly-Windows-User bashing of the Mac. A moron who doesn't bother to read up or learn how a Mac is different or what it can do, then complains when his Mac doesn't act like Windows. If I posted a blog entry on Windows that was as stupid as this article is, I would be too embarrassed to write again at all for a month, and would never expect anyone to trust anything I wrote about computers ever again.

There is one fringe benefit to this, however: if I ever need market consulting, I know exactly who not to call for assistance. If this guy is so clueless about operating a simple computer, I wouldn't trust him to do anything more complicated than driving a stick-shift, following a recipe for cookies, or programming a VCR--and probably not even that much.

iWork '07: Fleshed Out

Reports have been trickling in that iWork '07, the next release of Apple's Office suite, will finally reach full strength with the addition of a spreadsheet app, code-named "Lasso," to the package. Like Pages and Keynote, Lasso's initial release won't be as full-featured as its Microsoft Office counterpart, Excel, but also like Pages and Keynote, it will be fully compatible with Excel, as well as with Apple's old spreadsheet app from the now-defunct AppleWorks suite.

Lasso's function editor will sport more than 200 hundred functions that will span a number of needs, from financial to statistical and possibly niche applications such as engineering, sources say. Lasso will also feature limited integration with the Internet, making it easy, for example, for users to create a spreadsheet that automatically downloads and inputs updated stock market information at a specified interval. Wrapping such functionality in an attractive, straightforward interface will be Lasso's strong suit, bringing practical, advanced capabilities to the masses.

To that end, Apple will also include a number of attractive templates with Lasso for such needs as personal finance, business, personal planning and health, such as exercise performance charting and calorie counting logs. Several templates will also target K-12 teachers, including grade books and lesson plans.

One can also expect Apple's spreadsheet app to be uber-cool in the graphics department, particularly which it comes to making charts and graphs. I only hope that the app allows the user to choose any design they want for each chart, and not be limited to one design per "theme," like Keynote is now.

Apple will also update Keynote and Pages. While Keynote's upgrade will be "incremental" (read: no new big features or design changes, just added templates and stuff), Pages will get a much-needed revamp. People have often complained that Pages is trying to be both a word processor and a desktop publishing program, and the mix doesn't work (I'm OK with it, but I see their point). This new report says that Apple will be separating the two functions into different "modes," presumably similar to Microsoft Word's "normal" and "print layout" views. They also report that Apple may even build interfaces with Wikipedia and Google directly into the program so that people writing anything which requires web research won't have to switch to a browser window to do so. (Curious: will they make academic citation of web sources easy, accessible, or even automatic? That would be cool.)

The significance of the spreadsheet app being added is that the iWork suite will then be a complete package to supplant Microsoft Office, a much more expensive suite of applications, and, let's face it, a suite created by Microsoft. While the initial release of the iWork spreadsheet might not be as feature-rich as Excel, it will doubtlessly do the job more than well enough for a vast majority of users. Also, if you recall, both Pages and Keynote were feature-poor on their initial outings, but both have grown into more mature applications, and will grow more as time goes on. iWork '07 will be important as it will allow almost any Mac use to leave Microsoft apps completely behind, while remaining fully able to read and generate MS Office documents.

Price will also be a factor: Keynote was released at a $99 price point, but when Pages was added, the price actually went down, to $79. I would expect the iWork '07's 3-program suite to kick the price back up to $99--making the whole suite the same price as Microsoft Word alone, and one-fourth as expensive as the MS Office suite. Another big incentive to make the change, and it will probably come a half-year before Microsoft updates it's Office suite for the Mac with Office 2007--which may be the last upgrade of Office for the Mac that we'll see.

Mac Potpourri

Giants acting peevishly: Target has now joined Wal-Mart in opposing Apple's entry into the movie-selling market. Their lament:

U.S. retail giant Target has joined rival Wal-Mart in expressing concern regarding the adverse effect digital movie sales could have on the DVD business. Like Wal-Mart, Target is less than pleased that Apple's wholesale price for new movies from Disney is several dollars less than the wholesale price charged to Target for DVDs, The Wall Street Journal reported Monday.

Let's see. When Apple sells a movie, they do not need to have a physical DVD, the packaging that wraps it, the physical plant to create the DVD and the packaging, nor the distribution network to deliver the physical package. Plus, there is less content (no extras, like director's commentary or other features). That's why Apple gets the movies for less.

Maybe the giants saw this story about Tower Records going under and started sweating a bit. Still, it's time for the retail giants to stop whining like children, and accept that someone else can take a tiny bite out of them, like they destroyed giant swaths of small businesses. It's called "competition." I know they don't like it, but they might actually have to deal with it.

Apple has released three new "Get a Mac" ads. Cute, as usual.

I'm certainly not the only one who sees Vista's "spyware" (anti-piracy measures) as a disadvantage. The question is, how severely will this hurt Windows, and how well will it play to the Mac? Stan Baer reports:

It's a pity that I feel compelled to write an article like this. However, the thought of being forced to pay through the nose to upgrade to a highly configured PC running Vista, only to face the prospect of constant check-ups from some server in Redmond about the validity of my software has me a little spooked not to mention outraged.

No doubt there are plenty who disagree and believe that SPP is necessary to stamp out software piracy. To them and Microsoft, I say don't try to fool yourselves. The vast majority of software pirates are in second and third world countries. Many will find a way around SPP and those that can't will probably turn to Linux.

In fact, Microsoft's decision to try to nab Vista software pirates using spyware may be the best thing that ever happened to Linux and Mac OS X.

The more we see PC users talking about stuff like this (Baer also explains how you can run Windows on a Mac easily), the more chance there is that the Mac market will expand. It is certainly possible that Vista will be the best "Get a Mac" ad ever.

A couple of new Mac blogs out there to pay attention to: Google now has a Mac blog to go with their regular blog. A good way to get tidbits of general info in addition to keeping on top of what Google can offer your Mac.

And an Apple worker writes anonymously in the new blog, "The Masked Blogger." Not a hit piece nor necessarily a love letter, it could be interesting.

Not really Mac news, but big nonetheless: Google (video) just bought a big competitor, YouTube. YouTube will continue on as-is for the time being; no hint of what Google plans to do with it. In the meantime, the owners of YouTube now can enjoy a cool $1.65 billion for their past few years' work.

Finally, this is really not Mac-related... but I figured I'd tack it on. From the people at FG, a report on the new Star Trek... Pachinko game.

Your head may now explode.

Losing a Game of Catch-up

One more shot at the Mac-Windows world of today, and I'll probably come down off the topic for a while (unless something newsworthy comes out).

When it comes down to it, is there really any comparison between the Mac OS and the Windows OS? One in which Windows doesn't come across exceedingly poorly, that is?

Let's take a look at Vista's features:

Eye-candy interface
Improved search
Better security
Internet Explorer 7
Windows Media Player 11
Sync & Sharing
Live Taskbar Thumbnails
Windows Flip and Windows Flip 3D
Sidebar
Backup & Restore
64-bit native
Collaborative Meeting Spaces
Intensified DRM ("Genuine Advantage," "Plays for Sure")

On that list, only the last four features are not already on the Mac. Backup & Restore will be coming in Leopard as "Time Machine," with a much better interface, and Leopard will also be 64-bit native. Of the remaining two, the Collaborative feature will likely be of interest only to businesses, and the DRM is more a hindrance to users than a "feature." Everything else, as far as I can tell, is already part of Mac OS X Tiger. The eye-candy interface, better security, sync & sharing, and live thumbnails have been around for multiple OS X releases, in fact.

Effectively, Vista is little more than a game of catch-up--with Tiger. Meanwhile, a few months after Vista hits store shelves, Leopard will be coming out, putting the Mac OS even further ahead of Windows. Leopard's known features include:

Time Machine (very nicely executed Backup & Storage)
64-bit native
Improved Search (Spotlight)
Spaces (multiple desktop management)
Mail will be significantly improved and integrated with other software
iChat will be significantly improved and integrated
iCal will be significantly improved and integrated
Safari will be significantly improved and integrated
Dashboard will be significantly improved and integrated
Core animation will significantly improve built-in graphics management

Additionally, the following features are likely to appear as well:

iTV (as a separate product, but well-integrated) Front Row 2.0 (integrated and possibly merged with iTV) iPhone (as a separate product, again well-integrated, probably working closely with Mail, Address Book, iCal, iChat, iTunes, and iPhoto) Improved Finder Possible integration with Google Maps & GPS for iLife and other apps Possible Boot Camp upgrade with Fast user switching to avoid rebooting Possible release of Spreadsheet app to finish the Apple office suite (as a separate product)

And seeing as how Apple did a pretty good job of keeping a lot of stuff secret, there will probably be one or two more surprises in there. I know I mentioned some products that are sold separately (iTV, iPhone, Spreadsheet app), but they will be integrated and/or central to Apple's independence as a fully self-contained computing package, without need for reliance on Windows to some degree.

But there is one more aspect that Windows advocates fail to mention when they go on about all the advantages of Windows: Macs can do Windows, too. For an extra hundred bucks or two, you can get everything the Mac offers and everything that Windows offers as well. That, right there, catapults the appeal of a Mac far beyond simply Windows alone.

Yes, I know I am as biased for the Mac as I am biased politically, but I just don't see the advantage of buying a Windows box, unless you want to go dirt cheap and don't care about much else than that.

Leopard Leak

Maybe he wasn't supposed to do this, but one Apple developer wrote an article on his blog about new features in Safari 3.0 that have not been released publicly yet. Apparently the information is valid; some say they heard about these features soon after developers received their copies of Leopard. However, this is the first time the features have been released in so much detail, so openly. The guy's web site is now giving a "Forbidden" error message, but a mirror of the post is still available at the time of this writing. The site is probably down because of the Slashdot Effect, though one could easily imagine more sinister reasons having to do with Apple legal.

The features the author points out are very cool, though it should be pointed out that they are not necessarily unique. Other browsers have them--but usually as plug-ins or extensions, sometimes even requiring payment to activate. To have them come standard in a browser is very nice indeed.

One of the features the blog covers was made public some time ago, though not thoroughly demonstrated: a new Find feature. People have compared it to Firefox's Find, but I like Safari's implementation a lot better. In fact, I have always been annoyed by the Firefox implementation. I don't want to have to focus on the bottom of the page, and I've never liked the annoying sound it makes when the term I'm typing suddenly doesn't match anything on the page (I hope Apple doesn't copy that part). I am still partial to the floating find box, but I'll take Apple's top-of-the-page placement over Firefox's bottom; it simply makes better design sense, being more consistent with usual find actions.

But Safari does one better: it highlights all instances of the term simultaneously. When you type something in the find box, the search bar immediately shows you how many times the term appears on the page, while it highlights the first instance in the page. Hit the Return (Enter) key, and the page goes dim with all instances of the search term remaining bright. You can then roll through all the instances, making the one you focus on bright orange (in line with Leopard's new style). You ask me, I think that's a better way to run the show--though they could tone down the orange box a little bit.

But the features that I'm really looking forward to are the other two. First, the lesser one: resizable text boxes. This addresses a particular pet peeve of mine. I hate it when I go to a web site where they ask me to type something in a box, and they made the box so tiny that it's virtually impossible to write comfortable. Reviewing what you typed is extremely uncomfortable. I have often figured that some web sites do this intentionally--for example, business sites where they want to force you to keep your message short so they won't be so troubled by your complaints or what not. But this is also a common failing in blog comment areas.

The new feature in Safari allows you to resize the text box to whatever feels comfortable to you. Each box will sport a resize handle in the lower right corner; just click and drag, and you have the size you want. I would love to have that feature. Interestingly, some web page designers hate it; apparently, they want to dictate such things to you, and if the reader changes that aspect, the designers feel that the reader is "breaking" the page. I say, nonsense. The web is supposed to be democratic, even anarchistic, not totalitarian. I would actually like to see this philosophy extended to all aspects of the web site. Often the sites break on their own, because everyone seems to design for IE; if you don't use IE, you know what I'm talking about, with page elements sometimes drifting over others, blocking stuff and generally looking bad and being inconvenient. The ability to simply grab the page element and place it where I like would be fantastic. The ability to select an ad and delete it would be heaven. But for now, I'll settle for the resizable text box.

The last feature is the one I've been waiting for, though. I've seen it available before, but only as a paid software upgrade; if a free version exists, let me know. This is what the blogger called "Tabs on Steroids." The image at right doesn't really show the feature well, partly because of the low quality of the streamed movie, but also because the feature doesn't "photograph" well. What the image shows is the ability to re-order tabs. If you have many tabs open and you'd like to rearrange them, move a few to the left, some to the right, this lets you do it.

But again, Safari goes one better: you can drag a tab fully off the window. You can then either let it go independently, where it will form a new window with the tabbed URL, or you can drag the tab to another existing window and add it to the tabs there. Safari also allows you to combine all tabs in all windows into one window, consolidating all of your pages in one place.

Like with the resizable text box, this follows the paradigm of allowing a flexible web experience, letting the user dictate what happens rather then letting the application or the web page decide. One other new pet peeve I wish they'd implement along these lines: a working version of setting a default text size, one that overrides CSS settings. I don't know why they don't have this--but hey, maybe Safari 3 does. Right now, I find myself sitting in front of my 24-inch iMac, constantly hitting Command-plus two, three, or even four times every time I load a page. Strangely, that command overrides CSS text sizes, but not the default font size preference.

I'm sure there's more to Safari 3 than this, but what I see, I like. I very much look forward to January, when we will probably get the rest of the scoop on what Leopard overall will bring.

Mac Exploit?

Kind of. If you hear news about a "Mac Exploit in the Wild" and they represent it as a reason to see Macs as an insecure platform, take it with the usual grain of salt. It's not a virus, and the chances that anything will happen to your computer are pretty much zero.

What it is is a weakness that can only be taken advantage of by someone who has been granted access to the computer already, someone who has logged into your Mac with a password. The exploit allows this user to take full control of the computer, but the risk, really, only relates to the lack of trust you have in people who you have already trusted enough to give a password to log into your Mac in a limited manner. Not to mention that said person must have hacking skills. Needless to say, the chances of any of this happening to you are virtually nil.

Furthermore, the exploit has been patched by Apple's latest security update, so even if there is a chance for you, it no longer exists.

I've Got Future Tech?

When I was thinking of buying the 24-inch iMac, one small concern was whether or not I should wait for a WiFi upgrade. Apple's iTV project will probably use the WiFi-n that I described in a recent post, and I was concerned that I might be left behind. I decided not to worry because I probably won't use iTV anyway.

As it turns out, I seem to have gotten WiFi 802.11n anyway--Apple seems to have shipped the new iMacs with an 802.11n-compatible card. When the time comes, a firmware update might be all that's needed to activate the new speed bump.

Cool.

Dead Pixel, Stuck Pixel, Dim Pixel, Fine Pixel

As I mentioned before, when I got my new 24-inch iMac, my initial worry was dead or stuck pixels. I thought there was one dead one, but now I'm not so sure. Let me explain from the beginning.

A "pixel" is named after the words "picture element," and refers to a single dot on a computer display. It's an element because you can't divide it further (in one sense). Each dot, or pixel, has its own unique color. Your display's image is made up of perhaps over a million such dots. The computer generates the display image by telling each pixel exactly which color it should take for any given refresh of the screen, and there are perhaps 60 or so refreshes per second.

The old, heavy CRT monitors "painted" the pixels on the screen, line by line, and could change the number of lines (rows of pixels) flexibly; this allowed them to change resolution (number of pixels on the screen) and still maintain a sharp, clean image. Because they "painted" the pixels with color guns, you never had problems with individual pixels on CRTs; instead, if one of the guns failed, you'd have a discolored screen.

The new, thin LCD monitors work differently. In these monitors, each pixel is a physical entity on the screen; each pixel is its own mechanism. If you peer really, really closely at your LCD screen (preferably on a white area), you might just be able to squint and see the tiny lines, little rows and columns of teensy little squares. Those are the physical pixels of the LCD monitor. Here's an image to save you some squinting:

Now, getting closer...

And closer yet...

Now you can see what a pixel on an LCD is really like. As you can see, each pixel actually has a red, green, and blue element. Those colors are the primary colors of light. By changing the brightness of each of the three colors from zero to full, you can create any color the human eye can see. For example, if you turn the red and green pixels on full and turn off the blue pixel, you get yellow. Turn on the red and the blue and turn off the green, it'll be purple (magenta). Turn all three on full, it'll be white; turn all off, and it's black.

So actually, each LCD pixel has three parts to it, each one working independently. My LCD screen has 1920 x 1200 pixels, or 2,304,00 pixels. Count the color elements, and the LCD screen has 6,912,000 working parts.

We whine about dead and stuck pixels, but when you consider it, the ability to make a very expensive single piece of equipment with almost seven million working parts and not a single one of them failing--well, that's one hell of an accomplishment, when you think about it. Frankly, it's amazing they can make such screens without any malfunctioning pixels.

But parts do come out bad, and that's what we have to deal with. The two most common ways for an LCD screen to have something wrong is with "stuck" pixels and "dead" pixels. In each case, it is commonly not the entire pixel, but usually one color element within the pixel that goes bad. In a "stuck" pixel, one of the color elements turns on and never turns off until the monitor is shut down. A "dead" pixel is the reverse--the color element, or sometimes the whole pixel, remains dark. Here are a few examples of "stuck" pixels:

Stuck pixels show up best against a dark screen, so you'll notice them most when you're watching a video with dark scenes.

A "dead" pixel will appear to be a tiny speck on your screen--you will often mistake it for a bit of dust, or conversely, you'll mistake a piece of dust for a dead pixel. Here's one that was on my Powerbook screen, before I had it swapped out last month:

Only the green element was dead, not the whole pixel.

So, getting back to the subject I started with, my new iMac. When I got it, I noted that there was one dead pixel up near the top left of the screen, apparently with the green element out. It seemed even smaller than I had seen a dead pixel look like before. At first I thought it was the larger screen and the pixels were smaller, but that's not the case--Apple keeps the pixels about the same size.

So I decided to photograph it, that being the best way to see tiny details too small for the naked eye. Strangely, the photos showed no dead pixel elements. I looked at the monitor with my eyes, and sure enough, there was the dark dot. What the?

I started up Photoshop, and created a red, green, and blue image. By moving each color over the malfing pixel, I could see which elements might be mucked up. Sure enough, when I looked at the blue and the red, the dead pixel "disappeared"; when I put it on green, the dead pixel stood out. It was the green element, all right.

So why were my photos showing no dead pixels? After a bit of experimenting, I found out why: the pixel's green element isn't dead--it's dim. I'd never heard of that before, but there it is. Here's an image of the pixel with a green image; the red and blue elements will be dark, accentuating the green. You have to look carefully to see the one green element that's dimmer than the others.

Can you see it? It's on the same pixel row as the horizontal bar of the "plus" cursor, with the arrow pointing at it.

Frankly, I'm amazed I even noticed it with my naked eyes--I must have pretty good vision. That explains why it's not so dark as a dead pixel, and probably why I have to strain to even see it. I never even knew pixels could be permanently dim like this--now I do.

Using Parallels on a New 24-inch iMac

W2K and WXP alive on the Mac. Note the backlight, by the way; I find it helps a lot to make the screen brightness easier on the eyes.

The first thing you should know about running Parallels if you have one of the new Core 2 Duo iMacs is that the version of Parallels that download directly from their site won't work--it will cause kernel panics, crashing your machine from the start. Instead, you have to get the latest build--which, at the time of this writing, is build 1908, which can be downloaded from this page.

Once you have that, it'll all be cool. I installed Windows 2000 for starters, from an install disk my school gave me (we no longer use the OS, so they gave me a spare). With the new version of Parallels, it installed very nicely. When you make a new virtual machine, you're supposed to check the CD-ROM settings to make sure that the optical drive will be recognized properly; since I was installing from a CD, the native settings were all I needed. Then you click the "Play" button on the right-hand toolbar (where the original version of Parallels would crash) and a virtual DOS setup starts, recognizes the CD-ROM, and you go from there.

After it installed, the Windows 2000 OS seemed to run fine--but was limited to a screen resolution of 640x480 pixels and a color depth of 4-bit (16 colors). It turns out that you have to install "Parallel Tools" in order for the W2K drivers to recognize your actual PC hardware. To do this, you go to the "VM" menu and select "Install Parallel Tools..." while your virtual OS is running. Then color and resolution work however you want them to. After you shut down the virtual OS, you can even go into "Edit" mode and create custom screen resolutions to fit your fancy.

After that test, I tried installing Windows XP, and had the same result--it installed just fine and started running without incident. In fact, XP instantly recognized my screen size, and allowed for better display settings from the get-go. However, there is still a big advantage to installing Parallel Tools: smooth transfer between operating systems.

In default mode, each virtual OS within Parallels will "capture" the attention of your cursor; the cursor will only stay within the bounds of the Windows virtual desktop, even if the virtual machine is not full screen. In order to get back to the Mac OS, you need to hit the Control and Option keys simultaneously. After installing Parallel Tools, however, this is no longer necessary; instead, the cursor will simply switch to whichever OS it happens to be hanging over at the time, making for much smoother transitions.

Switching to a full screen is similarly easy to do. Just hit Alt+Enter, and a nice Mac rotating 3-D cube effect switches you to full-screen mode in Windows. In fact, once you enter full-screen mode, Parallels automatically adjusts the Windows OS screen resolution to match your monitor, so the resolution remains clear and sharp. In addition to allowing full video control and smooth cursor transfer, Parallels Tools allow for audio to work well, cross-OS copy-and-pasting (text and small images only, at present), and shared folder privileges. At this time, Parallels does not allow for drag-and-drop transfers between OS's--but give them time, and probably they'll get that enabled as well.

If you have an Intel Mac, want to use Parallels, but are having trouble, check out the Parallel Forums. For some reason, Parallels doesn't appear to have a link to here from any of their main pages--but it is a enormously useful resource.

Subtle Snow Job?

A lot of people seem to be presuming that the pricing of movies on the Apple iTunes Store is based upon how new they are--that new movies cost $15 and older titles are $10. Just to clear up a point, that's not how they're doing it. That was the rumor mill talking. Actually, Apple just has two-tier (actually, three-tier) pricing. If you look at the online store, you'll see that some titles as far back as the 1940s are priced at $15, and some titles from just last year are priced at $10.

However, the misunderstanding is not wholly due to the rumor mill. You'll note that Apple never actually says that new movies are $15 and old ones are $10--but when he introduced the service, Steve Jobs certainly made it seem that way. He said that new titles could be pre-ordered for $13, and would be priced at $15 after they were released--which makes it sound like the $15 pricing is reserved for new titles, but it's not. Sure, all new titles do get that price, but a lot of older titles get it as well. Additionally, the $10 price range is applied to what Apple calls the "Library," which again is unclear but sounds like we're talking about older movies.

In fact, the two-tiered pricing simply applies in whatever way the movie studio decides. Disney has priced all of its animated features at $15, including decades-old titles like Dumbo, Cinderella, and The Aristocats. Meanwhile, poorly performing titles from 2005 such as The Brothers Grimm, Herbie: Fully Loaded, and The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy are priced at $10.

So don't expect to be able to get your favorite movies for $15, unless you like movies that most other people don't. Apple didn't exactly lie on this one, but they did mislead--though there might be a reason beyond sales to explain it. Jobs has long tried to protect his coveted one-price-fits-all philosophy for online sales, while the movie industry has tried to get him to do tiered pricing, a more whatever-the-market-will-bear philosophy. Jobs lost on this one, and it may have been a bitter pill to swallow; the "new releases" angle may have been a bit of face-saving in that regard.

Working with the 24-inch iMac, Part I

A great deal about working with a new computer is naturally relative to the old, so a lot of what I'm finding on the new computer is just that: contrasts. I'm fully accustomed to laptops now, and since the last time I had a desktop Mac was my 300MHz G3 Tower (one of the last "beige" ones), the immediate contrast is pretty noticeable, in addition to the special features of the twenty-four incher.

The first thing that anyone must notice about this computer is the monitor. That much is obvious. It's big. Honking big. The strange thing is, photos don't convey this. I've seen photos of the iMac on the web before, and I tried taking some today--and still, somehow, the monitor just doesn't look nearly as impressive in the photos. Putting something near the monitor for scale doesn't help. To get the full effect, you simply have to see one in person, otherwise the effect is pretty much lost. And the effect is pretty strong; I wasn't sure about buying one until I saw it at an Apple Store--then I was very strongly motivated.

It just looks so small here, and in the photo next to the PowerBook from before.

Strangely, the size of the screen has one negative effect: text gets too small. Now, that shouldn't be a problem, because all you should have to do is set the text size to be bigger. And in apps like word processors, that's not a problem--but I'm finding it to be a big problem in browsing web pages. In both Safari and Firefox, the text size stubbornly refuses to reset. In both apps, I go and set the standard screen font size to be larger than 12-point, and nothing happens. I'm sure there's something I'm missing, but for the life of me I can't figure out what it might be. Now, there's an option to set the lowest possible font size, and that works to pump up the text size. Unfortunately, it does not affect line spacing, so the text crams together, and it also prevents me from making the text any smaller by the command-minus shortcut, if text becomes too big. So until I find the solution, I have to suffer with those problems, or get used to command-plussing every page I visit.

What my blog looks like, full screen. You can imagine reading gets a bit difficult...

But size isn't the only thing this monitor has; it's also bright. Too bright, sometimes. Right now, I have the room lights on full and the brightness is set to its lowest level, and it's a bit on the brighter side of just-about-right. It definitely takes getting used to. A reviewer said that in a brightly-lit office with sun coming in through windows, the 24-inch screen still seemed bright, and I can fully believe it.

What's best about the monitor is video. It plays video gorgeously. Even low-quality stuff looks fairly good. Medium-quality looks great. DVD video looks beautiful. But the kicker is downloading 1080p videos off the web (so far, just from Apple's movie trailer page); the 1080p's fit perfectly on the screen, pixel-for-pixel, almost completely filling it up. The monitor is, for all intents and purposes, a large HDTV screen. And the NVidia graphics card makes it play smoothly; on my PowerBook G4, even the smaller HD trailers can be somewhat jerky. I'll bet that gamers would love this computer--but I'm not a gamer and have nothing to test on it, even if I wanted to. But I do have Google Earth, and man, does a big screen and fast graphics make a difference with that. In fact, I had gotten all too used to the speeds of my PowerBook, forgetting that everything from web pages to graphics programs load and play faster than I'm used to.

What a 1080p video file looks like, natural-size. The clarity, of course, doesn't come across in this photo.

OK, enough about the monitor. It is the central feature of this computer, but it's not all there is. Though one last small point about a related issue: using a television as a second screen. With the video-out-to-RCA accessory cable, you can pipe your iMac to your TV (though there's no longer that much advantage in size!), but there is also a surprising new option: you can rotate the image displayed on the TV 90, 180, or 270 degrees. Why, I have not yet figured out--maybe just because you can. It seems strange, but there must be a reason.

I'm having fun with other features, many of which might bore owners of desktop Macs bought over the past few years--like the built-in iSight camera. It's been available for a year or two now as a standard option, but this is the first one I've had to lay around with. Now, for some time, I've been using Skype to voice chat with my family, and it just so happens that Skype has very recently released the beta version of Skype 2 for Mac, with video conferencing now introduced. I tried it out, and it works beautifully--better, in fact, than Apple's own iChat AV! The iChat sound quality sucks, and the video feed is smaller than Skype, which also has excellent audio quality. Today, my dad is going to go out and get a peripheral iSight camera just so we can have 2-way video chats. It'll be a nice addition, as you can show things to each other--for example, I just bought some old coins for my sister to make jewelry from, and tonight I can give her a peek at what I'm sending, maybe even get feedback on what to buy next. I've heard and felt the concern that you wouldn't want others to see how you look, but I find with family and friends, that's not really such a problem in practice, at least not for me.

Apple's Photo Booth software also adds to the fun, allowing you to gawk at funhouse distortions of yourself and whoever else is there. I'm certain that's going to get old fast, of course. But the ability to take easy snapshots will come in handy from time to time, I'm sure.

Another feature that's been around for a while now if Front Row, which I'd never actually used before, and didn't really get until now. Having used it, I find it resembles Apple's demo of their iTV box very closely. I also wasn't aware exactly of the functions--essentially, it makes your Mac into one giant iPod, in that you can navigate all your audio, image, and video files with the remote control interface, which is styled after the iPod. If you own a video iPod and have used it to peruse photos and movies in addition to music, it'll be a very familiar experience. Frankly, I'd just as soon use programs like iTunes, VLC, Image Viewer, or DVD Player to do the same things. Maybe I'll find myself using the all-in-one interface when I need it from a distance--but not that I can foresee.

When I bought the iMac, I opted for the Apple wireless keyboard and mouse. The wireless part is nice--I've always hated the clutter and tangles of shifting the mouse and keyboard around. One gripe is the power switch on the keyboard--essentially, you have to pick up the keyboard (which is a bit heavy), turn it over, and throw the switch on the bottom to turn it off--hardly a handy maneuver. A switch on the side would've been the obvious thing to do; why Apple didn't is a mystery to me.

Other than that, it's all about getting used to a new keyboard and mouse. I always have trouble with new keyboards, and spend weeks hitting the same wrong keys over and over. Right now the biggest pain is the "delete" (backspace) key and the F13 key. I set the F13 key to open my browser, and now half the time when I want to delete something, the browser pops up and for a moment I think my other app has suddenly crashed or something. I'd rather set the F14-F16 keys to start apps, but Apple mysteriously set F14 and F15 to be the brightness controls, without so marking the keys--and I can't seem to find any way to reconfigure those without a third-party app... Otherwise, the keyboard is nice--solid and with healthy bounce.

The "Mighty Mouse" takes some getting used to. I'm used to standard 3- and 4-button mice with normal scroll wheels. The MM keeps Jobs' fetishistic single-piece design intact, which means that the difference between a left click and a right click can be tricky towards the middle. The tiny scroll ball is strange at first, but you soon get used to the 360-degree functionality and the strange feel to its button action. I can come to like this. One other nice mouse movie is the control-scroll zoom feature. I use the zoom feature a lot, and this move comes in handy. The side "squeeze" buttons I don't like as much, and might not get used to.

More impressions later, especially when I try out some Intel-native iMovie HD work....

Delivery: 24-inch iMac

Yesterday, I returned home around 8:30 in the evening. Since the iMac I ordered was scheduled to arrive Monday (after initially being set for next Thursday), I wasn't expecting anything to be waiting for me Friday evening. Still, I checked the mail slot box on my front door--and sure enough, there was the express delivery company's "while you were out" attempted delivery slip, saying that they had tried to deliver a package just after noon.

Had I arrived home an hour earlier, I could've had it delivered before they shut down for the night, but as it was, it was too late--which actually turned out to be OK, because I wasn't even ready to get it set up yet. I had to clear out my PC and old G3 Mac tower from my main computer desk and set them up at the other end of the apartment, then clean up and arrange the desk so it'd be iMac-ready.

So this morning, at about 10:00 am, the delivery came, and I was ready to go:

I unpacked it and set it up on the desk, and it's beautiful. It's framed perfectly--just as much space between the bottom of the machine and the desktop as there is between the top of the machine and the shelf above. And virtually the entire desktop is now free, a stark contrast from previously, when my PC's 17" CRT monitor took up half the desk. The iMac looks perfect here. Of course, I'm always dreading dead or stuck pixels, but this time I came out OK. There is one semi-dead pixel (it appears that the green element is out), but it's way up in the upper-left corner of the screen, and heck--on this monster of a monitor, you have to strain to even notice it.

And the monitor is a beaut. Bright as hell--maybe even too bright. At night, I'm probably going to have to turn the thing way down. Here's a pic of the new machine on my desk, with my 15-inch Powerbook G4 sitting next to it, to compare both the size and brightness.

I am very pleased to have gotten this delivered early Saturday, especially as I have Mondays off; I'll have three days with nothing to do but play with my new toy. And if you think you might quickly get sick of reading about it on my blog, well, you'll just have to leave and come back on Tuesday. You can count on quite a bit of 24" iMac "pr0n" between now and then.

Update: Busy Saturday for Apple--my replacement battery for my PowerBook just arrived. No more shutting down every time I move the computer! No more lugging the power cable and brick around everywhere! It's about time...

Who Checks Their Data Anymore?

I should not be surprised at this, really, but it does continue to be frustrating. Reports are going all around the web over one company's data that show's Apple Computer's OS market share has been flat recently. One representative excerpt:

...data gathered by Net Applications shows that the Mac OS had 4.35 per cent of the world's operating system share last December. Now it only has 4.33 per cent.

This is being reported as very bad news for Apple, indicating that the expected revolution has failed. Other articles, such as this or this, are ultimately based on an article in TechWeb. While the articles do mention how the data was collected--a firm called Net Applications monitoring web site accesses--none of them point out the fact that MacWorld reported:

...it must be borne in mind that the Net Applications data is based on the company's PC-only web monitoring software which checks for what platform users are on when they visit a small collection of compliant websites.

In other words, the data is a non-scientific survey of people visiting web sites designed to work best on PCs. While the survey does measure changes over time, it is hardly an accurate measure of such; were it a submission of data for a scientific organization, it would likely be rejected out of hand. Hell, if I were using an Intel Mac running OS X but visited the site using IE on XP under Parallels, it would measure as an XP visit. Not that I expect the figures are much changed by that, but it is one example of how the data could easily be skewed aside from the obvious fact that the measurements are PC-centric in the first place.

Not to mention that this analysis of Mac shares staying flat from December to August flies in the face of Mac sales increasing 12% from summer 2005 to summer 2006, and Mac sales rising steadily over the past several years. (Coolest Gadgets also has a good analysis on the report.) Also not to mention that we're heading into what could be a big rise for Apple as Vista and Leopard are coming out, and Vista ain't looking too good. And on top of all that, there is the fact that people still haven't caught on to the fact that (a) Macs are now as cheap as, if not cheaper than, equivalent PCs, and (b) Macs can run Windows as well as the Mac OS. As awareness of these points increase, it's inevitable that Mac shares will grow--but by how much is the question. Will Apple's sales explode, or will it just be a slightly more popular niche, but still a niche?

In any case, one should treat this latest Apple-doomsayer story like the other recent flurries, such as the bogus virus threats, more virus threats, and yet more virus threats (recycled). Not to mention the infamous WaPo hack-the-Mac video in which a hacker appeared to be able to take control of a Mac remotely, hacking into the system through a vulnerability. Later, it turned out that the Mac's built-in wireless system was quite secure, and the hacker had invaded the system by exploiting a weakness in a third-party wireless card that was not even needed on the Mac, as all Macs that can accept the wireless card have built-in WiFi.

This is pretty much the gold standard nowadays for negative reporting on the Mac: accept any negative claim without checking its veracity.

Seven to Ten Days

Well, I broke down and ordered it. I had been told that I would have to fill out a special form in Japanese, so I called Apple Japan just to ask about that. The agent told me that wouldn't be necessary, and all I had to do was tell him the name of my school and we were on. (I already had an account with Apple Educational anyway, from my ordering Tiger from them last year.) I was taken a bit by surprise by this--I wasn't really ready to order right then--but then I thought, the hell with it, I know I'm going to get it, why wait? So I did.

I got a boost in going this direction by stopping by Yodobashi Camera earlier in the day. I was on my way up to the 2nd floor of the main Nishi-Shinjuku branch (where they have a Mac center) when I noticed their Mac island in the middle of the main floor. Even better, one of the iMacs had Parallels installed with XP running. I played with it, and it's pretty damned nice. It should do everything that I need from a PC at home--most of which has to do with preparing lessons for my Computer course, where they still use Windows (though I think I stand a very good chance of switching them to iMacs next time they have to buy a new bunch of computers). Having played with Parallels and the 24-inch iMac at the store, I pretty much convinced myself to buy.

All told, the purchase was ¥259,852 ($2212) including sales tax (¥247,478 or $2107 base). That's for the 24-inch iMac, an extra gigabyte of RAM, and the wireless Apple keyboard and mouse. I'm currently looking into how to get XP (academic or OEM) for less than the $200 regular pricing; parallels is a download and will be easy. I'm also looking at getting the Applecare (thanks to Dazza for the LA tip, I'm contacting them [Update: Dazza, the LA firm got back to me; they will sell at a lower price as you indicated, but shipping to Japan costs an additional $45, way too much. The Apple Store Japan has educational pricing for Applecare; I think I'll go with that.]); I've never had a serious meltdown on a Mac, but with a 24-inch LCD on an all-in-one desktop, I think it's worth getting the insurance.

The iMac is not upgradeable, true. But then again, I'm not much of an upgrade person. I wind up not getting any extra video cards, or whatever else. The iMac already has most of the bells and whistles you would upgrade to, in any case.

But I have to admit, it's the 24-inch screen that really got me with this one. I never really owned anything bigger than a 17-inch CRT--heck, I don't think I ever even worked on anything bigger than a 17-inch LCD. So the 24-incher is a huge step up, and probably impresses me a lot more than it does you. But as my sister-in-law put it, if it makes you happy, that's the big thing.

So my Windows PC and old 500 MHz G3 tower, conjoined with a 17" CRT monitor, will all get exiled down to my free desk space in a lesser-used corner of my apartment--in seven to ten days, that is.

New Mac Stuff

Several Sites are streaming the new Mac announcements live. Best is Engadget, who give the most information and have good-quality photos up very quickly. So far:

New iPods, not the full-screen video we've been waiting for, but upgraded regular video iPods. They come in 30GB and 80GB sizes (priced $250 & $350 respectively); they have brighter, better screens, a search function, and downloadable games like Pac-Man for $5 each.

iPod Nanos, in brushed aluminum colors (Blue, Pink, Green, Silver, and Black), in 2GB, 4GB, and 8GB sizes.

iPod Shuffle, in new, tiny aluminum case (matchbook sized!) which itself is a clip-on, a small clock & controls, 1GB memory, $80.

iTunes: going to version 7; videos increase in size from 320x240 to 640x480 (near NTSC-size resolution; should play back on TV rather well). New organization for layout. The "iTunes Music Store" (iTMS) is now just the "iTunes Store" (iTS).

Movie Downloads (as expected): $10 for most movies, $13 for new movies until the end of the first week of sales, $15 for new titles after that. Also at 640x480 resolution, "near DVD-quality." 75 titles to begin with, from Disney-owned studios (Walt Disney, Pixar, Touchstone, Miramax). Dolby surround audio. Takes about 30 minutes to download a movie, but you can start watching immediately. Initial sales from U.S. store only; international sales start in 2007 (hopefully).

Media Box: codenamed "iTV" (not the final name), a set-top media box connecting wirelessly between a Mac or a PC (via iTunes, apparently) and the TV set/media system. To be released in early 2007. Also has ethernet, USB, RCA, optical audio, HDMI ports. Allows you to play downloaded TV/movies, other Internet video media. Priced at $300. Cobbled-together photos from Engadget feed below:

My reaction: well, OK. We expected the movie downloads. The new hi-res download standard is good, but they kind of had to do that to make people pay $15 for a downloaded movie. Sounds like the DRM will be reasonable, and maybe with the TV playback, the inability to burn it to a DVD won't be such a problem.

The media box looks nice, but I'm going to have to see what it really does before I get excited about it. I mean, you can hook up your Mac desktop or laptop to your TV right now and watch video played back from the computer. How does "iTV" change that? Why pay $300 when a $20 cable could do the same thing? OK, iTV looks like it has a very nice interface. Wireless is nice too. But what else? If it just pipes video, I really don't see the point.

OK, the Apple web site is back up, along with the Apple Store. The iTunes Store is still down, at least for me.

Gotta get to bed. This time zone thing kills me on these events...

TubePort?

TUAW claims to have the agenda for tomorrow morning's Apple event. Included in the highlights are the Movie Download store, the widescreen video iPod, and something called "TubePort," which appears to be simply a USB-to-TV converter, performing the same function as a VGA-to-TV or video-minijack-to-TV converter.

Frankly, I'm doubtful; as described, "TubePort" would simply do for $100 what a simple $20 cable would do today, not to mention that "TubePort" is an incredibly lame-sounding name. And to save that for the "one more thing" spot when the video iPod is in the mix, well, it doesn't ring true.

I'm still hoping for the video iPod, and the movie download store seems like a lock. If there's a third thing, it'll probably be Apple's long-rumored media box which connects the computer to all of your AV equipment in the house, the "media jukebox." Definitely something connected to the movie download bit.

The "agenda" also includes a movie download price structure which, in addition to a $15 movie download, includes a $20 price point for full-sized movie plus video iPod version. While this sounds very much like what the movie studios want, it is definitely not an Apple-like idea.

To Wait 6 Months... or Cave Now

I really, really want one of these puppies.

The new 24-inch iMacs are out. I went and played with one at the Apple Store today. Now, when I first saw the 20-inch iMac, I thought, this thing is huge. But the 24-incher puts its 20-inch sibling to shame. For a minute there, I almost thought I was looking at Apple's 30-inch super-luxury monitor; even knowing the size difference, I still walked over to the 30-inch display to compare. You can tell the difference, of course, but it doesn't feel like much. Maybe the iMac's large white facade makes the screen look bigger, but really, I don't think it needs any help. In MS Word, a 2-full-page display of a document left the pages displayed more than large enough to read comfortably and had lots of screen space left over. Unfortunately, there was no full-screen, high-quality video on the machine to test, though in hindsight I now realize that I could have downloaded an HD trailer from the Apple movie trailer site.

The specs for the $2000 (base price) desktop are pretty impressive. The new Core 2 Duo chip (2.16 GHz, option for 2.33 GHz for an extra $250) has a 4MB L2 cache (that's good, take my word for it if you don't know what I'm talking about), and a fast NVIDIA graphics card. 250 GB HDD, Superdrive with DVD+R DL/DVD±RW, Built-in Bluetooth 2.0 & WiFi-g, built-in iSight camera, and the ability to use S-Video out to the TV (Apple does a good job of high-quality video out) in case the 24-inch monitor just ain't humongous enough.

I decided some months back that I would get an iMac as my next computer purchase, but not until next year, after OS X v. 10.5, Leopard, is released. My last computer, this PowerBook I'm using now, I bought just a few months before Tiger was released, and I had overlooked the extra money it'd cost me to buy separately--one downside of Apple's no-upgrade-option policy on software purchases. But when I decided to wait, I thought Leopard was coming in January (now March or even later seems more probable), and the 24-inch model hadn't been released. And with the iMac line being refreshed now, it's likely that I'd just see another iMac speed bump occur just a few months after getting one in Spring--which would make me want to wait a bit more, and I'd get caught up in the eternal wait-for-the-next-better-model game. Now it's beginning to seem a bit silly to wait six months or more to buy a computer just because I don't want to pay $130 for a new OS--especially when, as an educator, I have the academic discount that puts Leopard at $70.

There is one nit I have, though: Apple sells the iMac with 1GB of RAM, which is nice, but I of course want to upgrade to 2GB at least. The problem: the on-board 1GB is really two 512MB RAM chips which occupy both of the iMac's only slots--no empty slots to add RAM. Which means that if I wanted to upgrade, I'd either have to pay Apple $175 for what should be a $120 upgrade, or I throw away perfectly good RAM chips, which in the end would be even more expensive. Bad form, Apple. The 1GB of RAM should absolutely have been a single GB chip--but maybe that was their idea, to make you buy from them up front. (One other nit for Apple: running Windows natively on a Mac is a huge plus point; why not demo it in Apple stores? You may well have lost a sale today when my Japanese friend couldn't see it at work when we visited the Shibuya store.)

Japan pricing, usually higher than American, would add $140 to the total; however, I luckily am eligible for the 7% educational discount from Apple Japan, which would set it back down to $2000. But I'd have to shell out the full $200 for Windows XP--due to their system of educational sales, I would not be able to buy it without going through massive headaches with my school's home campus, thousands of miles away (unless anyone out there knows differently?). The whole shebang, including XP, the 2GB Apple RAM, and the option for wireless keyboard and mouse, would set me back about $2400. Oh, wait, I forgot that I'd want to buy Windows virtualization software--almost certainly Parallels. Add another $80, call the whole deal $2500. Add another $170 (total of $2650) if I want to opt for the extra 2 years' AppleCare warranty.

Partly I'm writing this to work out for myself whether to buy it now or wait. I have this personal rule where I don't buy anything expensive until I've considered it for at least two weeks. However, that's more for impulse buying something that I wouldn't really use and don't truly want (like the five hundred bucks I shot on a Sony Clie PDA years ago, virtually unused all this time). I know I would use the iMac, though.

Any thoughts?

Something Big...

Well, the rumors of a 23-inch iMac were wrong. It's a 24-inch iMac. While the 20" iMac now goes for $1500 ($200 less than before), for an extra $500, or $300 more than a 20" iMac cost last week, you get the considerable extra screen real estate in addition to an advanced graphics card (the 20" has an ATI Radeon X1600, the 24" an NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT). The entire iMac line was also furnished with the new Core 2 Duo chips, and the Mac Mini line was made Core Duo across the board. The cheapest iMac, the 17", now sells for $1000, or $300 less than before.

But that's not what this entry's title is about. Rather, it's about September 12th, when Apple has a big media event, which they are touting with the logo at right, proclaiming that "It's Showtime." Most everyone figures this means that Apple is going to release their movie download service, a reasonable interpretation.

But the really interesting thing is that the 24" iMac and CPU upgrades were no small deal; usually, they'd get a show of their own. Instead, just a week before an Apple media event, the iMac and Mac Mini upgrades were quietly announced, with no great fanfare. That suggests that whatever Apple is going to release on the 12th, it's big enough not to leave room for today's upgrades... and that's saying something.

Expectations: aside from the movie download service, people are talking about the long-awaited iPhone, with sources saying that it's finally ready. Others say a video iPod, but probably just because the video service seems ready to go. However, others say that Apple has a whole new media center solution (maybe hardware) ready to go, and the movie downloads may be of DVD quality, not iPod-sized. It could even be a new kind of video download service altogether, with perhaps the TV downloads also going higher-resolution.

In any case, we'll know the answers in a week.

Update: Via MacRumors, Variety and AP are already talking about the movie downloads as a certainty, noting that Apple will probably only have Disney on board at first, as the studios are balking at Apple's low, fixed price structure.

A 23" iMac?

So the rumor sites seem to be reporting. The rumored release date would be September 12th. This has somewhat of a ring of truth to it, because more than one of the more reliable rumor sites are saying their sources confirm it. If so, a 23-incher would be a huge machine. Have you seen a 20" iMac? Looks huge. A 23-incher would be giant. And if it does come out, I think I know what machine I'll be buying when Leopard comes out next year.

There are also hefty rumors of the video iPod being released in mid-September (some say current iPods are being moved out the door to make room), along with the announcement of $10 and $15 movie downloads from the iTMS (though only one studio is known to have signed on).

Apple Battery Exchange

I found myself caught up in the now-infamous battery exchange program when I checked the latest range of serial numbers Apple put out and mine fell into the range. Or at least it appeared to, so I called them up and they asked for the serial number of the battery and the computer. I'm not sure, but I have the feeling that the computer serial number was not needed to identify the problem, but rather they wanted to know who I was before alerting me so they could cover their liabilities. Despite good marks in general for their customer support, Apple's legal department can be less warm and fuzzy.

You see, despite battery explosions being a relatively rare event, Apple doesn't want to be liable for any damages that might be caused by a battery eruption to the computer, or more significantly, to surrounding property or persons. So when you identify yourself as having a suspect battery, the support person immediately tells you to remove the battery and not to use it until a replacement arrives. Which will be four to six weeks. And if, in that time, you are forced to use the battery and it explodes, Apple won't pay for a penny of the damages. They told me that in no uncertain terms. Not that I accept those terms, of course.

Now, a lot of the time I use my computer, it's plugged in, but a lot of the time, it's not plugged in. For example, when I move from my office to my classroom every day, I work on my computer in the office and then move it to class where I will use it. If I can't use the battery, then I have to shut down and restart the OS and all the software for each move--a pain in the ass. And I also use the computer where there aren't any power outlets. After all, it's a portable computer, that's why I got the Powerbook in the first place. It's got a battery because the users need that battery. Not being able to use the battery for six weeks is effectively taking away a $2500 computer for a certain chunk of the month and a half it will take to get the battery replacement.

To be fair, they did try to offer an alternative, though the alternative was unworkable for me and did not make sense. They said that if I packed up the whole computer and sent it in to their repair people, they could have it sent back to me in two weeks with a new battery. Later, they shaved that time down to one week. But I had to send the whole computer, not just the battery alone.

Now, that was unworkable for me because my school starts next week Tuesday and I have to have the computer for all kinds of preparation for the course I teach. But it did beg the question: why was it necessary to send the whole computer to Apple? Undoubtedly so that it could fit into a repair paradigm. Which means that in reality, Apple does have batteries sitting around the repair center, and they could send one to me within a week, but they won't do it unless I conform to the repair paradigm which would make me send a perfectly healthy computer in to the repair shop, where absolutely nothing would be done to it, and that would take a week.

Arghh.

Now, I understand that Apple is now deluged with exchange claims. I understand that batteries must be in short supply (the tech support guy said they aren't even selling batteries at the Apple stores). I understand that the repair route is probably offered specially to those who put up a fuss and they probably keep it difficult so that everyone won't see that as a shortcut and start demanding it. And I understand that Apple wants to avoid liability for any battery fires which may result. And I would not expect anything more (and probably I'd expect a lot less, in fact) from Dell or any other manufacturer.

But what it amounts to is semi-crippling my computer for the next month and a half, and if anything does happen with the battery, they expect me to pay for every cent of damages--in other words, Apple truly is liable here, but they want the customer to shoulder the liability burden. Like I said, Apple legal can be just as warm and fuzzy as the next pack of lawyers.

The Mac Is Back

Good to their word, the Apple Store got my Powerbook back after 5 days in the repair shop (they said three days to a week, none of this "working days" crap). The new screen is in, and it works beautifully (though I haven't had time to heat-test the screen area darkening yet). Not a stuck or dead pixel on it anywhere--which is a step up from my previous screen, which had a single pixel with a dead green element, though it was off to the side. I have the feeling that with another computer maker, the complaint (which could not even be demonstrated well in the store, I had to use digital camera pics to show it) probably would have been refused and a free repair not given--even within the warranty, where Apple allowed me to get a repair three months later so long as I reported it within the warranty period. As usual, Apple gets high marks for service.

Being off the Mac does make me appreciate it over the PC more, though a good deal of that has to do with software versions. Qualcomm's Eudora email software, for example, is very good on the Mac, but it sucks big time on Windows. Alert sounds especially were impossible to control well, and I couldn't find a way to set auto mail check intervals for each account separately.

Also, generally, Windows apps work within a single window, whereas Mac apps can split tasks of a single app between several windows, if necessary. Like in MS Word on Windows, if you have more than one document open at a time, they can appear within one main window, and then a sub-window appears inside that has its own window buttons (minimize, maximize, close) just below the main app's buttons. If there are no docs open, a gray pane persists. On the Mac, each doc has its own window, with toolbars and palettes free-floating. Maybe it's just personal preference, but I like that better--it allows for freely sizing each window and allowing for overlaps. Less constricting, less crowded that way.

In any case, I've got my security blanket back. Yes, it's pathetic, I know. But we all have things we'd rather not do without for long periods of time. What's yours?

WWDC Roundup

Engadget had the best live coverage, as it turns out--nearly transcribed the event, and included photos.

The new Power Macs were brought out first. Dual-processor Core 2 Duo Xeon (Woodcrest) Macs, up to 3GHz, 4MB L2 cache, 64-bit. Since the G5's enormous space required for cooling will not be required any more, there will be space for two optical drives and up to four hard drives (up to 2 TB storage), reportedly snap-installed for easy access. Apple's page is up.

Amazingly, the lower-level unit (2.6GHz dual) comes with a weak 256MB of RAM. Either Apple is cutting corners hard to reduce the price, or they are commenting on how little minimum RAM you need with the Mac OS--a strong point when comparing to Vista, one has to admit.

Nevertheless, that's going to be a blazing computer. Love to get one, but I'll have to do with whatever revision of iMac comes out instead.

Also announced were new XServes, Apple's server model; these use quad Xeons, 5TB storage, yadda yadda... hey, look it up if you have to know about servers.

They made a point on prices, how the price of these higher-end units is lower (maybe 10% lower) than a Dell--however, one has to assume that they really worked hard to skew the numbers in favor of Apple. I suspect that if you compare Apple with average brands and do some research, it'd be a wash.

Next came Leopard, but not without first showing how Vista is going to be what the Mac OS has been, with a side-by-side comparison of Vista and Tiger.

Big news: Leopard shipping in "Spring"--so it won't beat out Vista unless that gets delayed big-time. (That also means I'll have to wait longer to buy the iMac; last time, I bought Tiger, then a few months later, bought a Powerbook; not doing that again).

Leopard features (Apple's page is up):

• 64-bit support throughout
• "Time machine" versatile automatic file backup system (no one saw that coming that I know of)
• Software accessories (Boot Camp, Front Row, Photo Booth)
• Virtual desktops called "Spaces" (many predicted these)
• Improved Spotlight
• Improved automatic animation across system & apps
• Universal Access improvements (closed caption in QT, better text-to-speech, Braille support)
• Mail: better standard HTML stationery with templates, more of a graphic-oriented email system; Notes feature; adjunct "To do" list with alarms & systemwide tie-in
• Dashboard: "dashcode" to help developers anyone make widgets (no need to know code, just drag-and-drop!); "Webclip" for users--make a part of any page into a widget (like the "Dilbert" cartoon strip), essentially a "make your own widget" feature
• iChat: multiple logins, invisibility, animated buddy icons, video recording, and tabbed chats; Photo Booth effects, video filters; iChat Theater (voice-over slide shows, Keynote presentations); Backdrops, which allows you to do a green-screen effect without the green screen--simply step out of frame so the computer can discount all background information, then step in front of the backdrop, which can be a photo or video clip; also, share displays--look at a remote user's screen and control stuff on it.
• iCal: multi-user function
• XCode 3.0 (developer stuff)

Funny about the Mail feature of the "to do" list--Jobs mentioned that he used to send emails to himself to remind himself to do things, but the new feature in Mail does it better. It's funny because I did that exact thing, sent myself an email as a "to do" reminder, just minutes before monitoring the keynote...

As for "Spaces," it's hard to tell, but from what I can see, it's not what I hoped. It only switches views for application windows you have open--it does not give you new Desktop real estate for your icons. Very disappointing, because that's what I would want a lot more than what they did. My Desktop is constantly getting cluttered with icons. What I need is a way to have all the icons clutter a Desktop I don't often use but can call up anytime I need it, keeping my usual Desktop clear and clean. Yeah, I know, I could put them all in a folder--but it's not the same thing.

More about iCal is shown on Apple's web site.

A bit of a shocker, though, is what was not said: Jobs announced that "top secret features" are not being revealed yet, purportedly so that Microsoft can't copy them as early.

So, that seem about it. No new iPods, no iPhone--just new Mac Pros, new XServes, and most of the new features in Leopard.

So what are the "top secret" missing features for Leopard? Well, if you thought the speculation would be over today like I did, you were wrong. If anything, I imagine this will ramp up the rumor mills. Probable additions:

• Maps (possibly in iChat), a service like Google Maps, which will provide satellite images and driving directions;
• iTunes update, possibly with movie downloads;
• Safari updates (possibly tie-ins with Spotlight, also saving tabs);
• More Spotlight enhancements?
• UI Enhancements?
• Probably iLife and iWork enhancements as well.

But will there be something else big that no one is seeing? After all, many of the items shown today were kept under wraps very effectively, including the major app improvements to Mail, iChat, and Dashboard, not to mention Time Machine. So there is a good chance that there are a few big features left that nobody's guessed at yet.

Unexpectedly, the iChat improvements stunned me the most.

The iChat collaborative shared display feature is very cool--effectively it looks like Timbuktu, remote access of someone else's Mac. That would mean you can troubleshoot someone else's Mac for them, or show them a process without having to be there.

Another iChat feature, the iChat Theater, allows you to show images, movies, or more importantly, Keynote presentations, with a small image of you on the side. This may not look like much to you, but I can see huge possibilities from a teaching standpoint. Remote teaching suddenly comes to life. What if I'm too ill to go to school and teach, but my voice is OK? I could remote-teach a lesson, given proper preparation. One Mac at school with with the camera pointed at the class, with the screen mirrored to a TV, and presto--instant remote lesson. The Backdrop feature could even hide the hideous mess of a room I didn't want to clean because I was sick.

That also includes international lessons. My school has "Internet" classes, in which teachers in California lead a class which includes students here in Tokyo. Up till now, the class depended on expensive software to work--but iChat, a free app, could conceivably replace that.

Throw in the shared remote display feature, and you could teach computer classes. Throw in multi-conferencing, with enough joint users, I could teach a whole class that way, too, even more hands-on.

In short, iChat could really lead to some interesting stuff in online classes.

WWDC Beginning Soon; M:I:III

WWDC starts in 90 minutes--just a heads up to those getting this blog via RSS, who are interested in Macs, and who weren't aware of the timing for the event. If that number of people > zero.

Here's perhaps the best live-update site for the keynote speech.

Off-topic: I just got back from seeing M:I:III, the late show. (Late show tickets are only $11! Whee!) Yeah, I know, M:I:III, old news, but (a) it opened two months late in Japan, and (b) I waited an extra month so I could be into my vacation and not have to fight the crowds.

I don't know why that movie didn't do well at the box office (though I just checked, worldwide it hit $380 million, not incredibly shabby). Yes, it had a weak, predictable ending, but everything except the last five minutes of action was as good as the M:I movies get, and Abrams managed to put in a few fun bits at the end despite the weakness. And before that, almost nothing except blam, blam, blam--loud noises, big explosions, lots of jumping and sneaking around and fighting and other fun stuff. What more could one ask for?

Leopard Details Posted?

O'Grady's Powerpage claims to have a detailed preview of some Leopard features on their web site. A few people are already calling it out as fake, but if they are genuine, expect them to be taken down very soon after Apple's lawyers jump on them. After a brief glance, they certainly do not seem to be complete, if they are real. The information only deals with upgrades to some existing services in OS X (Spotlight and Dashboard mainly, with some details on Safari, and short bullet lists on iChat, Automator, Quicktime, Mail, iCal and Address Book). I say it's not complete because if that's all Leopard is, it'll be a major dud. I've got to get ready to leave for my graduation ceremony in about an hour, so I don't have time to blog on the details right now; just see for yourself. I'll comment tonight, but by then, I am sure many others will have dissected this thing to a tee.

WWDC, Vista Delays

So what's going to be up with the World Wide Developer Conference starting August 7th, less than a week away? One thing that we know for certain is that Leopard (Mac OS X 1.5) will be revealed, and we'll know what's really going to be going on with the new OS that will come out opposite Vista. But what else?

The common knowledge answer is that the new Mac Pros, with the newest and fastest Intel chips, will be released, completing Apple's switch to Intel. Apart from that, an upgrade for the iPod Nano. However, Robert Scoble suggests that there will be a lot more:

Speaking of Apple, they are readying a dizzying amount of new products. I wish I could camp out at an Apple store during the World Wide Developer Conference on August 7th. I wish I could say more, but that’d get me sued by Steve Jobs and I don’t need that kind of heck right now.

A "dizzying amount of new products"? Well, people have been talking about the iPhone (still considered a long shot--they've failed to materialize for years now), and maybe a movie download/rental service. But what the heck else could there be? The full-screen "no-touch" video iPod isn't expected to come out until early next year. There are rumors of iChat going VoiP a la Skype, but fewer expect that than expect the iPhone.

Could Leopard, the Mac Pros, a small iPod upgrade, movie downloads, and the iPhone be considered "a dizzying amount"? Is more coming than we've heard of? I would guess that Scoble is either over-estimating or is too easily impressed.

Possibilities are covered here, a wish list here, and a WWDC Bingo game is offered here.

Update: Engadget has a story on what might be the iPhone, called "iChat Mobile," with photos. (A subsequent video that got people excited is now shown up to be a fake--a printout of the iPhone mockup on glossy paper cleverly folded to look like a real device in a low-quality video.) Also, here's another WWDC rumor roundup, and here is perhaps the best.

FWIW, Scoble is also suggesting that Vista might indeed be pushed back again (or at least that it should be pushed back), perhaps by as much as six months. Roger Kay tends to agree, and all these people do as well. The reason is that there are still to many problems, mostly in speed, user interface issues, driver issues, and application compatibility problems. I have my doubts, though--I think that Microsoft would be hurt more by another six-month delay than by releasing a buggy OS. After all, both problems are expected by everyone, but the buggy OS is less apt to damage Microsoft's image than pushing back the release date, an issue that already has Microsoft in the position of marketplace laughingstock.

...And Nobody Seemed to Pay Attention

Even after Symantec admitted in a phone interview that the so called "Trojan Horse" titled "OSX.Exploit.Launchd" is not in the wild--that is, it has not attacked anyone's computer--still, about a dozen sites, like this one, this one, and this one, and many blogs like this one and this one have picked up the story that it is in the wild and that it is a threat, though a low-risk one. The fact is, it is not a threat at all--in fact, despite being a trojan, no one seems to have any idea how it fools the user into allowing it onto their computer.

If any of the news organizations (and to a lesser degree, the blogs) want to maintain credibility in reporting computer news, they had better stop simply picking up news releases from anti-virus companies and printing them verbatim, and start actually checking out whether or not the stories are fabrications intended to stir up business for the companies.

Here We Go Again

Here's an article I spotted on Google News, via Vnunet.com:

Security experts have warned that malware which exploits a flaw in the Mac OS X operating system has been spotted in the wild.

As usual, the warning came from Symantec, a firm that now has a firm track record, like McAfee, of releasing alarmist reports full of exaggerations and falsehoods which try to represent Mac OS X as being vulnerable to malware so they can sell frightened users their unneeded anti-virus software.

So you go to Symantec's page warning of this new "OSX.Exploit.Launchd," and it says this:

OSX.Exploit.Launchd is a Trojan horse that exploits the Apple Mac OS X LaunchD Local Format String Vulnerability (as described in Security Focus BID 18724). It provides root access on the Macintosh OSX version 10.4.6 or earlier.

The thing is, as much as I try to read this report and the news articles generated by it, I can find no description anywhere of how the trojan presents itself. A trojan is supposed to trick a user into opening the malware via social engineering, but there is not a word about how it does so--information which would be vital for people to avoid it. In fact, the Symantec page only will say that the "trojan" will provide root access to an outside user--but the "trigger" and "distribution" info fields all say "n/a." Furthermore, while the report claims that the trojan is in the "wild," it reports that there are "0-49" infections on "0-2" sites.

So guess what? It doesn't exist. That's right--this so-called "trojan" in the "wild" has no actual existence except as a potential for existing. The company has now admitted that nothing more than example exploit code exists--in other words, somebody wrote yet another unapplied and harmless bit of code to show how a certain security hole in OS X might be exploited. Not to mention that Apple released a security update a few days ago in 10.4.7 to patch the exploit.

And yet Symantec's page on this "trojan" still stands, claiming it is a "trojan" (how can that be, when there is no method of delivery?) and that it is "in the wild"--although in a way, their report of "0-49 infections" is accurate in that there have been "0" infections. Incredibly misleading, however, as no one would expect such a classification to be made if there really were zero infections. And yet...

Days of Wine and Windows

Something that few expected seems to be becoming more and more of a possibility: the direct ability to run Windows programs in the Mac OS, without having to own or boot up the Windows OS.

This year, we saw two Windows-on-MacTel solutions arise: Apple's own Boot Camp, which allows one to choose which OS to use upon startup (but not both at once), and Parallels, a virtualization solution that allows you to boot up Windows within the Mac OS, allowing both operating systems to run side-by-side, or at least Windows-under-Mac (Apple is even touting Parallels in its commercials instead of its own Boot Camp).

But now a third solution is becoming possible: the WINE solution. WINE started more then a decade ago as a way to run Windows applications within Linux and other Unix-related systems. One does not need Windows to open Windows software; with WINE, you can open the software directly within the host OS (images here). One company which deals in this software translation, CodeWeavers, has just announced that they will be bringing WINE to the Mac.

The down side of this is that WINE is not a universal translator--it only allows you to use a limited number of apps (and a limited number of versions of those apps) on the host system. These include MS Office (Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Outlook, and Access), Macromedia Flash 7, Dreamweaver MX, and Shockwave 8.5, Adobe Photoshop 6 & 7, Quicken, and a few other apps.

Obviously, this is not a cure-all. However, it is promising in terms of what can be done, even without assistance from Apple. And despite the limitations, it could be meaningful--I've heard some people say that a few key apps, like Access, have been preventing them from making the move.

But more to the point, if this much can be done independently from Apple, then if Apple worked to include Windows APIs and incorporated WINE, a lot more could be achieved.

In the meantime, virtualization like Parallels offers is quite satisfactory, though it does require one to buy the Windows OS, which adds a few hundred dollars to the purchase of a Mac. You still get a lot more for your money, but the bean counters still trying to defend a Windows-only approach will grab hold of that as a last defense.

Leopard Parts

With the WWDC a little more than a month away, people are talking more and more about Leopard. So far, some "screenshots" have been released, but since they are contradictory, at least one of them--and just as likely both--are fake.

The first set were released on a Spanish-language web site, and are almost certainly fake. On the first image, of the Desktop, the window panes are repainted to match the new style in iTunes, and there's a recolored iSync icon. The second image suggests a virtual Desktop switcher, but all the elements are again ripped off from existing Mac OS graphics.

And now a second set of two screenshots--of virtually the same activity, virtual Desktop switching--have been released through another site. These images seem much more realistic, and are more enticing, but are also probably fake. They show the intriguing feature of tabbed Finder windows a la Safari; a much better implementation of iTunes-style window panes (with a few new buttons and menus included); an icon for a joint Address Book and iCal app; menu bar icons for Windows and virtual Desktops; and, most intriguingly, a Windows app (Internet Explorer 7) apparently working seamlessly within the Mac OS. The "About" window seems to suggest that XP is working within Leopard as well. However, some flaws do show: the "About" window simply declares "Version 10.5," while traditional beta builds show the raw build number; the Explorer window uses an XP-style scroll bar, suggesting it was Photoshopped in; and the shadows behind the Explorer window are incomplete, again suggesting a mock-up instead of the real thing.

Nevertheless, if it is a fake, as it almost certainly is, it is a very good fake.

So what will be in Leopard? Nobody seems to know for sure. Some kind of Windows-running solution, to be sure, but whether it will be a final version of Boot Camp, or a much-rumored virtualization technology, no one knows. The holy grail would be what is suggested in the second round of fake screen shots: the ability to run Windows apps from within Leopard, either transparently, or without even having to boot the Windows OS first. This is seen as the long shot, with virtualization (like that already provided by Parallels) more likely, and Boot Camp almost certainly (unless it is replaced by something better).

The two sets of faked screen shots both suggest virtual Desktops (a feature third-party apps now provide). This probably comes from this guy's claims of having worked with Leopard, probably fake. He claims a lot of stuff, but mostly techie-oriented and unimaginative minor stuff (speed bumps, minor app reworks, etc.). And his multiple "Finder window" rumor may be erroneously based on this report based on Apple patent filing suggesting "multiple Finder window selects," which is not about multiple Finders (Desktops), but about selecting icons in more than one open window at a time.

However, the iTunes theme is widely accepted as inevitable, as is the Address Book-iCal merger.

So what else? According to LoopRumors from last Fall, Leopard will include:

• Window transparency (though this seems to "Vista-ish")
• Animated icons with sounds, maybe only in the Dock
• Better Dashboard implementation (faster loading, using less RAM)
• Applications running in Full-screen mode, or as Desktop pictures

Add to that a fixed Finder--though that also is already widely rumored. In fact, some rumors are that fixing the Finder will be a major focus in Leopard. Of course, that's been rumored for almost every new version of OS X since it came out.

This very new report says that Apple will integrate a Google-Earth-type satellite image/road map/direction finder app into the OS. They also suggest that Boot Camp will be discarded in favor of virtualization, as reported above.

Other rumors include collaborative documents, allowing many people on different Macs connected on the Internet to make changes to a single app simultaneously. Others suggest an improvement in Boot Camp and/or virtualization allowing Vista and/or Linux to be run with Leopard as well as XP. Resolution scaling (the ability to make everything look larger without sacrificing image quality) is also being suggested. And some even suggest that Leopard will integrate BitTorrent, will use it for the iTunes Music Store and Apple Software updates--and users who donate their upstream bandwidth would get credit at the iTunes Music Store. Cool, if true (I could build up credit with my F/O), but I seriously doubt Apple has that much trouble with its own bandwidth to require such a thing. Some have also suggested that Leopard will use a completely new kernel (the core of the OS), but that is effectively being dismissed.

So a lot of rumors, but nothing at all confirmed yet. Apple might still be doing a very good job of keeping a lid on things, and we could all be surprised. But keep in mind that in the past, the reality is almost never as exciting as the rumors. Which is why so many people love the rumors...

What Sucks About Mac OS X

A guy named Thom Holwerda on OS News did a piece on what he feels sucks about Mac OS X. While he has a few good points, most of his rant is either highly subjective and personal, or is relative to what this guy has gotten used to in Windows after using that OS since he got a PC. This is not to say that Mac OS X doesn't have its sucky points; I feel it does, like pretty much all users (of any OS). And since I have so often harped on what I feel is wrong with Windows, maybe I should put in some equal time for the Mac.

I'll get to what I think is wrong with it, but first what Holwerda wrote:

The MacOS does not exactly feel fast.

This is one of his better points. There are more delays than there should be, probably because of all the eye candy. Conversely, a Windows PC with maximum eye candy installed can slow down, too. But with the Mac it can be harder to turn it off. This is covered more in my own point #1 below.

MacOS X is an inconsistent mess. Yes, it really is. Graphically, that is. OSX now has, what, 7 or 8 different themes...

It does? There are a few variations of the original OS X eye candy, and a few variations of the brushed-metal theme, but 7 or 8? And does it really jar the eye that much? Frankly, I've gotten so used to them that I don't even notice. But then, I think they're all classier than the standard Windows theme anyway. But this is my point--it's highly subjective.

One of my biggest pet peeves: that annoying Google search field in Safari.

Are you kidding me? I hadn't even noticed it up there, I just never use it. So what if it's there? Besides, freeware exists to modify it. This guy is just too lazy...

Tiger has some serious issues with... Screen remnants.

I've seen these, but only rarely. Again, either he's oversensitive or something is wrong with his OS. And I've noticed just as many redraw issues on my Windows XP machine. Live with it.

Macs need an indicator LED for HDD activity. It is really annoying when your Mac becomes slow or unresponsive and you have to lay your ear on the keyboard to see hear whether it is still doing something or not.

Again, something must be wrong with his Mac for that to happen often enough to matter. Besides, when my Mac becomes unresponsive, I can usually tell by seeing when it becomes unresponsive. Then I do a command-option-escape to see the Force-quit window, which tells me if the app is unresponsive. Then I force-quit and restart the app if I need to. What's the big deal? Same as Windows, in fact.

Mail.app is a pointless email client, and I am flabbergasted I still use it every day.

Then don't use it, you idiot. Get Eudora. I wouldn't use Outlook Express on Windows myself, I'd use Eudora again. I wouldn't say XP sucks because some of Microsoft's apps suck. Same goes for this guy's Safari beefs above.

...MacOS X has an evil dock. Yes, it looks cool and all, but it's a UI nightmare. Instead of having a separate section for taskbar entries and application launchers, the dock has one section which aims to be both, but obviously sucks at doing so. It's confusing.

No, the dock is fine. This guy is just too used to Windows. I think that the dock works a hell of a lot better than Windows' methods, and Exposé beats the living crap out of dealing with Window's stupid task bar. The dock is perfectly simple, if you're used to it and know how it works.

OSX needs a decent uninstaller, supplied with the OS... . You see, Mac people will tell you how easy it is to uninstall applications: just drag to the trash and done. That's wrong. When you drag an application to the trash, it leaves behind a trail of configuration files and the like all over the OS. Obsessive-compulsive as I am... , I want an application to really be gone when I uninstall it.

This guy is blaming OS X because he's got OCD? What a lamo. Just leave the prefs where they are. They won't hurt a thing, and will have zero effect on anything. Jeez. In fact, if you decide you want to re-install the same app in the future, your prefs are already there! Besides, this guy seems to be stupid enough to believe that Windows' uninstall leaves his OS clean! If you're lucky, uninstalling Windows apps will not break the other apps--if you're lucky. And he's got his panties in a bunch because the Mac OS has some harmless leftover scraps he'll probably never even see? What a loser.

Apple needs to put more effort into backwards compatibility.

Apple has been backwards compatible, right up until this year with the switch to Intel. On my Powerbook G4, I still have a little game app from 1986 I still play. I'd say two decades of backwards compatibility is not bad. True, it sucks that my next Mac won't be able to play the original Civilization, which I much prefer to later versions, but I can keep using my old G3 tower for that, if need be. My father depends on a Classic app for business which has not been upgraded, and so can't use a Mactel for that. So if you have that kind of dependency, then Holwerda has a point here. However, there are benefits to Apple's philosophy on this; Windows suffers from all the woes connected with native backwards compatibility, which makes Windows more buggy and inflexible, less secure, and bloated.

So what do I feel is sucky about OS X? Well, mostly smaller stuff, I'll admit, but there are some really annoying things. The one that most Apple people agree of is:

1. FTFF, or "Fix the F***ing Finder." Holwerda touched on one aspect of this, that being the relative unresponsive nature of the Finder (notable mostly on older machines). But there's a bit more to it. For example, when you go to the View Options, there's an option to have your preferences apply only to the current window, or to all windows. But this option seems to have no default, and could be set either way any given time you go into View Options. Another problem is how the OS slows down if there is a problem with a network shared volume--though that particular problem has been greatly alleviated in Tiger. Another FTFF issue is icon spacing. You can't change it, which can be annoying as well. There's other stuff, mostly more small annoyances. Rumors have it that this will be a big focus in OS X 10.5, Leopard.

2. Language Stickiness. This may be something that only applies to people who type using more than one keyboard layout, and may even be tied to the FTFF issue, but I find it annoying enough to go high on my list. I often switch to Japanese language input. Then I switch back. The problem: Japanese will often pop right back into play when I switch to a different app or window, or even a different text box. And since I hunt-and-peck and must look at my keyboard, I often won't notice I'm in the wrong language until after I've typed a whole sentence. Annoying as hell, and it usually takes a while to go away.

3. Safari. OK, I'll include the browser too, but in one shot. And I won't blame Apple for the fact that some web content providers don't support it (what's up with that, Google?). Safari has its own problems. One is general responsiveness. Sometimes it seems like half the time I'm using Safari is spent looking at the damned beachball, waiting for things to load. And if a web page anywhere in Safari auto-reloads, it puts Safari on hold for way too long a time, essentially the whole time needed for that one page to reload. I usually have Google News open in a tab somewhere, and every five minutes, Safari goes beachball when GNews does its auto-refresh. And am I the only one to notice, or doesn't anyone else get fed up with certain web pages being unresponsive in Safari? Every time I go to MSNBC, as a common example, and I double-click on a word, Safari will do the beachball thing for like ten seconds. If I'm stupid enough to click four or five times, I might as well go and take a bathroom break. This is more a problem for me, as scrolling in Safari is often too fast, and so I select a line or a paragraph to mark my place so I don't lose it when I scroll.

All that said, let's not forget that Window's Internet Explorer is still the suckiest browser on the planet. Version 7 is supposed to be better, but if you give Safari the same amount of time to improve as IE has taken (ten years?), it'll probably be a hell of a lot better by then as well.

4. Full, Native AVI Support. Not too big a deal, since VLC will handle practically any video file. But it'd be nice if Apple finally got off it's butt and added full support for what's probably the #1 video format on the Internet, for crying out loud.

5. Search. Granted, Windows sucks way more than Apple on this, and Spotlight is fast and very cool. But not without issues. First of all, there is a lack of ways to sort things once you've found them. Spotlight won't let you sort by size, for example, which is stupid. Hopefully it'll get fixed soon--it used to be possible, and Spotlight is new. As it is, though, you have to open the "information" button on any given item just to see the size in search mode. Also, you're supposed to be able to search by filename only and exclude content by adding quote marks to the keyword. That doesn't work like it should. One more gripe: while it's nice to be able to hide certain folders from searching (lest content from dictionaries, web page caches, and email archives overwhelm any search), you should be able to override this by doing a direct search within the folder hidden from search. You can't. You instead must go to the preferences, delete the folder from the hide list, search, and then add the folder to the hide list again.

6. Options and Features. Another app problem, but this is common in almost all of Apple's home-grown apps. There are way too few features and options. Strangely, the OS itself has no lack in this department, but the apps are quite a different story. Some say that Steve Jobs wants to keep things simple and streamlined. I, for one, don't like that. Add more options! More features!

7. Displays. This is more a problem if you use external displays, like a TV set, in both mirrored- and non-mirrored modes. Sometimes your Mac will get confused. Sometimes wallpapers will vary unpredictably. Sometimes, only the external monitor will register and my Powerbook's screen will remain black!

That's about as much as I can come up with after mulling it over for a day or so. It'll be interesting to see how much of this gets addressed--if any--in 10.5. One thing remains, however--despite all of the flaws in the Mac OS, it is still heads and shoulders above Windows, which is why more and more people are saying what this guy is.

Smackbook

This is a cute little video showing a clever Mac Hack. Apple laptops include a hard disk motion sensor, intended to stop the hard drive whenever a sudden motion is detected; this was intended to prevent disk crash damage when a laptop was dropped or jarred too hard. But people have been finding ways to use the motion sensor to other ends. In this case, the hacker used to work with two monitors, but wanted to pare that down to one. So he used a virtual desktop app (one which creates two desktop/screen workspaces which you can switch between), and then keyed them to switch when the motion sensor detected a slight jarring of the laptop from the left or right. The result: when he smacks his Mac on the side, a side-to-side transition of desktops occurs, allowing him to switch between virtual monitors in a very tactile manner. Just watch the video, you'll see.

The Vista-Ready Computer

A writer at CNet's News.com web site tried out the "Upgrade Advisor" software provided by Microsoft to test the readiness of various computers to accept and run, without trouble, the next version of Microsoft's OS. Which computer was most compatible, according to the tester?

An Apple Intel Mac Mini with 1GB of RAM running Boot Camp.

Go figure.

There is a point I wanted to make in addition: always upgrade your RAM. When you buy a computer, you're buying from a store that wants to price things as low as they can go while still maintaining as high a profit margin as they can manage. So add-ons are one way they go: if they can sell you on a low base price, they can still claim they're selling cheaply even after you bought a whole bunch of other stuff that they stripped from the machine to make it look cheap.

RAM is one of the first things they pare down, like an airline getting rid of yet another "perk" like, say, food. Most people know little or nothing about RAM. If you know, for example, that with a sufficiently powerful CPU, 256MB of RAM is more than enough to run Windows Vista while having three or more standard applications running, then you are one of the 9 of 10 people who know very little about RAM, because that statement is totally false. If you caught on to the falsehood before you got to the part of the sentence where I let on to the truth, then you're the other one in ten who knows a little something about it. But since 9 in 10 don't, stores can sell you a computer with too little RAM and you won't notice.

In fact, having enough RAM is very important--but that won't be apparent at the store. First, the store model (presuming that they don't cheat and put extra RAM in) is probably just running one app. RAM is a finite resource which your OS takes a big chunk of, and then each new app you open takes another chunk, and so on, until you run out of RAM. I had a friend who could open Windows 'Me' really well, and could even work MS Word snappily--but if she opened a second app, her computer would reeeally slow down. Reason: she had only 128MB of RAM, and Windows + Word used it all up.

Why does a computer slow down when it runs out of RAM? Because programs need a certain amount of memory to temporarily store data while the CPU is busy with something else. RAM is that storage space, and it's very fast. When RAM fills up, the computer may have to resort to using the hard drive--which is way slower. So when RAM runs out and your computer starts using the hard drive for everything, your computer slows way down.

Here's another reason why the need to upgrade RAM doesn't show up at the computer store: because the need is off in the future. In the story I started this entry with, I noted that Microsoft's "Upgrade Advisor" checks your computer for Vista compatibility. One point of compatibility is the amount of RAM. That's because Vista needs a lot more RAM than XP. XP needed more RAM than Windows 2000. 2000 needed more RAM than '95. Et cetera. Just about every new version of any kind of software requires more RAM than the last version, sometimes significantly more. This is true with operating systems or application software. So, while that present-day showroom computer can run XP and Word 2003 just fine with 512MB of RAM, if will fail dismally at running Vista and Word 2007. They can ignore that at the showroom.

A lot of people actually end up throwing away their computers when they become too slow, without realizing that all they need is more RAM, and it'll become zippier.

That's why it's a good idea to upgrade your RAM right away, when you buy your computer: it allows you to open up as many apps as you like without worrying, and it inoculates you from slowdowns when you upgrade your software later on.

That's not to say that RAM is the only thing you need to worry about. The CPU is important, as is the graphics card, and some other technical geek stuff. I've heard Windows users sneer at Macs because of the prices, talking about $500 PCs. When you point out that the Mac Mini starts at about that price, they'll laugh, and point out that it doesn't come with an LCD monitor! No problem. Just buy your Mac Mini and use your old monitor, then you can laugh at them next year, when your Core Duo Mac Mini is running Windows Vista and Office 2007 in Boot Camp (or whatever new version Apple has by then) while they're just figuring out that the weak-ass Celeron they bought can't make the same upgrade.

The New MacBook

Well, it's finally out. Starting at $1100 with a dual-core 1.83 GHz Core Duo CPU and a 13.3" glossy widescreen LCD at 1280 x 800 pixels. The mid-level model comes with a 2GHz Core Duo, with a SuperDrive instead of a Combo Drive, for $200 more. The next higher model, strangely, costs another $200, but the only thing you seem to get different is 20GB more on the hard drive and a black enclosure. Obviously, the mid-level model is the best deal. In fact, it's pretty close in specs to the lower-end MacBook Pro, for a lot less. Compare this to my PowerBook G4, which I bought less than a year ago; mine cost almost double the new MacBook, and will be almost half as fast. For a consumer-end laptop, the new MacBooks have a respectable amount of power.

Of course, you have to add RAM (though the on-board 512MB is not horrible, at least 1GB is more like it) and pay $200 for Windows XP. That would make the mid-level model $1600 for a powerful laptop with Mac and Windows combined under the hood. Not too shabby.

New "iBook"?

Via MacRumors: strange, but maybe an indication that the new iBook/MacBook is really coming out tomorrow (May 9). On Apple's web site:

iBook Overview

May 10, 2006, from 03:00 PM - 04:00 PM Eastern ...

- Overview
Hear about the most affordable iBook ever.

- What you will Learn
Specifications and features of the new iBook. ...

Location:

CompUSA #551 Manhattan

Hasn't been a "new" iBook in quite some time--it's been nine months--hard to see how they could call a G4 iBook "new." On the other hand, isn't it supposed to be called a "MacBook"? Though Apple did keep the name "iMac" for the consumer desktop--maybe that's the pattern. Though there was an apparent Apple web site "MacBook" sighting just a few days ago. Weirdness.

On the other hand, if it's real, then the "most affordable iBook ever" is promising--it would mean the entry-level model would sell for less than $999. Which would be a really smart move on Apple's part, even if it didn't have the highest profit margin. Better to grab market share.

In case the page goes down, here's a link to an image of the page.

UPDATE: ...or not. Now they're reporting that the new iBook/MacBook will not be out until next week at earliest. Such is the way of things when you rely upon rumors.

Apple Wins Over Apple

Apple won, of course.

Quite frankly, I have always thought that Apple Corps Inc.'s string of legal actions against Apple Computer was kind of ludicrous. I mean, really, aside from the fact that both use the name "Apple"--about as common a word as you can get--within their corporate names, there's little or nothing that would make you confuse the two. Apple Corps vs. Apple Computers. The Beatles' tax shelter corporation used a photo of a whole green apple as a logo; Apple Computer used a rainbow or solid-color apple with a bite out of it (with the meaning of the Apple--taking knowledge--being wholly different from the Beatles' use of the fruit). As the Apple Computer attorney put it, even "a moron in a hurry" would not confuse the two.

Even after Apple made the iTunes Music Store and iPod, there could not possibly be any confusion. Did anyone ever confuse anything by Apple for anything by the Beatles? Did anyone decide not to buy an Apple Corps product because they thought Apple Computer was too uncool?

And seriously, how could anything that Apple has done ever cost Apple Corps any money at all? What, people bought fewer Beatles songs because they thought Apple Computer ran the show? It really all has the smell of the Beatles firm simply trying to milk the maker of the Mac line for cash. They already got about $27 million out of the computer maker, probably far more than any confusion could possibly have cost them (if, indeed, they did not actually profit from any chance association). Heck, having the Beatles' music on the iTMS would probably have prompted me to buy some; this lawsuit business prompts me not to. Apple Computers, even with the iTMS, is not a record label.

This really should be the end of it--but unfortunately, probably not. Apple Corps is set to appeal the ruling.

MacBooks on May 9?

Looks like the 13.3" widescreen Core Duo MacBook is finally coming out. Apple stores are said to be pushing iBook sales to clear inventory; new boxes are arriving at the stores that say "Do not open until May 9"; and the Apple web site made another error and showed a hierarchical label that read "MacBook."

The price of the unit will be the important point. If it's competitive with Windows notebooks, it'll be a killer package--an affordable laptop that can do Mac and Windows, fast. Four more days...

Here We Go Again

Seeing an opportunity to jump on the recent "Macs aren't safe" bandwagon, McAfee Inc. just released a report (pdf file) which claims that Macs aren't safe. The report is clearly biased, stretching facts and definitions, and presenting the case in as damaging a manner as possible.

This is what gets me: McAfee is a company that sells antivirus software. And yet, in the article, McAfee is identified only as a "security firm," and no mention or disclaimer is presented to explain that the company issuing the report stands to gain financially from a biased and inaccurate report. How is that not an issue?

One dishonest point jumped out at me right away:

From 2003 to 2005, the number of vulnerabilities discovered on the Mac OS platform has soared 228 percent to 143 from 45, McAfee Inc. said in a report entitled "The New Apple of Malware's Eye: Is Mac OS X The Next Windows?" Microsoft Corp.'s Windows platform, on the other hand, saw an increase of 73 percent.

Do you see it? That's right--they note the percentage of increase of vulnerabilities in both operating systems, but not the number for both; while they note the number of Mac vulnerabilities, they neglect to clearly state the number of Windows vulnerabilities. In the original McAfee report, that number is intentionally buried in small print in the footnotes, though there is no honest reason to do so.

Windows vulnerabilities jumped from 92 to 159, as opposed to Mac vulnerabilities going from 45 to 143. So the Mac is made to look worse than Windows because Windows itself was less secure two years ago? Not to mention that it still has more vulnerabilities than the Mac OS today? No wonder they buried that number--it clearly shows they are playing with the truth here, manipulating the numbers to make Macs look far more open to threat than it actually is. Also of note is that the report fails to measure the potential threat of damage via the vulnerabilities or the effectiveness possible for any exploit attempted.

Another example of a clearly intentional omission: the McAfee report mentions the Inqtana worm that operated via a Bluetooth vulnerability:

...OSX/Inqtana.a actually exploited an OS X vulnerability in the Bluetooth directory traversal and file exchange services.... Apple has a patch available on its web site for the vulnerability exploited by OSX/Inqtana.a.

What McAfee fails to mention is that the patch was made available by Apple eight months before the Inqtana worm appeared, and that the patch is not only available on its web site, but that most users have Apple's Software Update running, and would have received the patch long before the worm appeared. In addition, while McAfee explains technically how the worm is transmitted, they skip any mention of how completely unlikely transmission would be (it requires two Bluetooth-active Macs in the same room, one infected, and then the other user has to authorize a non-existent Bluetooth peripheral). Even if the vulnerability had not been widely patched 8 months before, the chances of the worm spreading farther than a few users was unbelievably small.

One inaccuracy they don't try to hide is their classification of the Leap trojan or the Inqtana worm as viruses. What's the difference? A trojan depends on social engineering, and therefore is not a problem with the security of the OS. And while a worm can be more dangerous than a virus, it is not widely recognized as such; if you say something is a "virus" it's bound to get more of a reaction. McAfee also glosses over the fact that with both "viruses," user intervention to validate the malware was required, and in both cases was highly unlikely to happen.

All of this leads one to question any of the contentions of the report, including the vulnerability count. I'll wait until any of this is verified by an independent source, thanks.

Once again, this is not to suggest that the Mac OS is invulnerable, or that the increase in the number of recent vulnerabilities is not cause for concern. It is to suggest, however, that this is nothing more than yet another wildly exaggerated claim of the alleged weakness of OS X security, in this case forwarded by a company that stands to profit from the fear the report inaccurately generates.

Update: ZDNet agrees with me.

Update 2: Just one day after releasing a highly biased report exaggerating the malware dangers of OS X, McAfee showed up their own self-serving motive by releasing a new anti-virus product "for Mactel." The software being named as though it was designed for "MacTel" plays on irrational fears that somehow working on the Intel CPU will somehow make OS X more vulnerable when nothing of the sort is true. It is further disingenuous since (according to reports) the McAfee software is not even written for use on the MacTel platform, but instead runs under the Rosetta emulator; this means that the inclusion of "MacTel" in the name is for fear-mongering specifically, and does not describe anything about the actual software. McAfee really seems to be crossing lines of truth and propriety badly here.

Windows Vista: Delayed Again?

Not according to Microsoft. They are standing by their most recent claim that Vista will be introduced in January 2007, a release already pushed back several times. But analysts at Gartner are now claiming that there is an 80% chance that Microsoft won't even hit that target, and that "broad availability" of Vista could be delayed yet again, perhaps as late as June 2007. They base this prediction on the timing of Microsoft's announced release date for the second Beta release of Vista, scheduled for this summer; they predict it will take at least 9-12 months to go from Beta 2 to full release. Microsoft counters that they'll be ready in five months after Beta 2, as they were with XP--except that Vista is far more complex an upgrade than XP was.

One has to take the strong assurances from Microsoft that they are "on track" with a grain of salt; after all, just last November, when the Beta 2 release was pushed back from December to January or February (it's still not out), Microsoft reps were positive that "the company remains on track for shipping Windows Vista in the second half of 2006." Now they're saying, "we remain on track to deliver the final product to volume license customers in November 2006 and to other businesses and consumers in January 2007." Pretty soon, they might be saying, "we are dedicated to staying on track for a 2Q 2007 release."

Also, Gartner has a point about the delayed release of the Beta 2 version of Vista, and Vista's complexity. If Vista does come out on (current) schedule in January, it may be a relatively unfinished release that could need many upgrades before it reaches a stable level of usability.

Of course, it may be that this won't matter to a lot of people. After all, Vista is reported to be a power and memory hog, and many people won't be able to use Vista without buying a new computer. More will probably take a wait-and-see attitude before switching from XP. If I recall correctly, XP took a while to get a lot of people switched over.

If one thing is for certain, it is the fact that further delays in Vista will deal even more PR blows against Microsoft--especially if Apple's OS X Leopard, 10.5, is released well before Vista makes it to the consumer.

In other Mac/Windows news, more and more articles on the web are pointing out that the recent "Macs besieged by viruses" stories are not quite so accurate. Snippets include:

Con Zymaris has been working with Unix systems for nearly three decades and for the past 15 years has been running a consultancy on open source software implementation. Zymaris says that, while it is true that a Mac can get infected with a virus, it is not easy and it is not likely to cause much damage. What's more, Mac users don't need to install firewalls and anti-virus software.

And:

OS X is not going to be vulnerability-free, but I do expect it to show significantly fewer vulnerabilities than Windows has. That does not mean OS X users can ignore security - at the very least, enable the built-in personal firewall - but it does mean you should not stay with Windows because you think it will be safer.

So there.

And finally, Apple has come out with its biggest new ad offensive since the "Switcher" ads a few years ago. The six new commercials (viewable here) feature two guys--a cool dude saying "I'm a Mac," and a slightly nerdy business guy saying, "I'm a PC." They then act out various conversations which cutely play out several of the advantages of the Mac, in a simple, friendly-joshing yet nevertheless competitive manner. At the least, they're fun to watch. I love the one title's "Network" with the Japanese gal playing the digital camera. In case you don't understand Japanese--and it's hard to catch exactly as there's overtalking and it sounds a bit cut up--she asks the cool Mac dude about the PC guy, "Doesn't that guy seem a bit nerdy?"

Nothing New, So They Recycle

You may recall a few months back when the media was sizzling with reports that Mac viruses were on the loose, and that the Mac OS was no longer secure. These reports turned out to be bogus; there were no viruses, and the malware that was found was harmless. As I promised, I have been keeping an eye out for reports of any actual malware, anything that could conceivably be a threat in real life, so I could give the word here that it was time to buy anti-virus software.

Today, reports are surfacing of a Mac virus that can damage your system; lots of media outlets are carrying it. They report that this one user named Benjamin Daines clicked on some links and caught a virus--on his Mac! Gasp! The AP article gives no date for Daines' perilous encounter, so it sounds like it happened just now, and it sounds like a completely new viral outbreak.

Of course, it's not. Daines was the same guy who reported the first "virus" back in mid-February, and the tale told in the new AP story is simply the same old story from before, warmed up and made to look like something new. In fact, if you look at the page where the trojan (not virus) was released (don't worry, the offending link was removed, the thread just shows people reacting to it), you'll notice that Daines was not even the first to notice it--he was the third.

As I've pointed out repeatedly, it's not a virus--it's a trojan, which depends on something called "social engineering" to propagate. Essentially, that means that the malware does not penetrate any security holes, but instead tricks the user into allowing the malware in. It's like the difference between a home intruder breaking in by evading the house's security system vs. an intruder tricking the occupant to let them in the front door. If you let the intruder in past the security defenses, you can't put the blame on the defenses. Since no security system can possibly protect against social engineering, it is ridiculous to use such an example--even one as lame and harmless as the one Daines fell for--to claim that the Mac OS security is vulnerable. No computer can protect against the gullibility of the user. If you're a Mac user and you think that you can do any stupid thing you like and never get harmed, then you're gonna get burned. But it won't be the Mac's fault, it'll be yours.

The real test will come when a true, self-propogating virus comes about, one that does not require active user intervention to allow access to your computer. Such a thing, as yet, does not exist for the Mac. It is possible, but not as likely or as easy as it would be for the Windows environment. So, despite alarmist stories in the media, you still don't need anti-virus software for the Mac. You might, someday, so it might not be a bad idea to make a daily check at MacRumors.com, where news of any such outbreak will be reported, with far more reliable commentary and analysis to reveal the true threat to your Mac, if there is any threat.

iTunes Staying at 99¢

Who knows what Steve Jobs said or did, but for the time being, it looks like he convinced the major U.S. music labels (if not the Japanese ones previously) to stay with the universal 99¢ pricing system for iTunes. How Jobs did this is not clear, because it seemed that the labels were pretty serious about this, and some even threatened pulling their content from the iTMS if Jobs did not acquiesce. These are companies that consider themselves to be very powerful, and are used to getting their way; that Jobs was able to stare them down speaks to just how powerful Apple has become in this business, not to mention how important online paid downloads have become for the music industry. The iTMS has sold more than a billion songs so far, and has almost as complete a lock on the market as Microsoft has on the OS.

The labels wanted to change the pricing so that older songs would cost 60¢ to 80¢, while newer songs would be priced "more aggressively"--in other words, whatever the market could bear. They claimed that this was being done not for themselves of course, but instead for the artists and the consumers. Complete bull, of course--the labels have always ripped off both the artists and the consumers, the artists by making them sign usurious contracts that give them very little of the profits from their work, and the consumers by charging outrageously inflated prices.

Some suggest that Jobs wants the prices kept down so he can sell more iPods, but really this is closely connected to the sale of songs; Jobs makes money off of iPods if more songs are sold, and he'd make less money if the songs were priced too high. But then again, so would the labels. The disagreement is not over who makes money, it's over who's right about which business model will make more money for everybody.

[Editor's note: sorry this was published late--I finished it last night but there's a problem with my blog publishing software that I have yet to fully resolve.]

More Bits and Pieces, 4/20/2006

Remember how the GOP's and Bush administration's Medicare drug plan prohibited Medicare from negotiating for better drug prices? Well, lots of seniors are finding out how that's affecting them. Some are discovering that their subsidized purchase of drugs via Medicare are more expensive (and sometimes come with more restrictions) than buying their drugs at Costco.

Bush and the GOP like to talk about how Medicare is "broken." Well, it is now they've sabotaged it.

It seems that finally a media company has figured out that in order to be successful in selling downloadable movies, they have to get rid of the ridiculous restrictions recently laid down by the big studios. Instead of limiting downloads to people with Windows, IE, and specific media players, instead of limiting the download to the feature attraction only, and instead of prohibiting the burning of the movie to DVD, one media company has boldly decided to allow customers to download the entire DVD content, with special features and all, and burn it to a DVD at home, for the same price as buying one at a store. The DVD will have some copy protection, but nothing the average consumer would notice unless they tried copying the DVD.

Who is this upstart media company? Vivid Entertainment Group. Who are they? They are an "adult entertainment giant." That's right, following a centuries-old paradigm that any popular new media concept will be first pioneered by the porn industry, Vivid will apparently be the first to sell downloadable videos without prohibitive restrictions. The big Hollywood studios are said to be watching this move closely (maybe in more ways than one), and if successful, they may emulate it. Where would we be without porn?

The new Macbooks (formerly "iBooks") should be arriving in about a month. If they're priced right, then they should be a huge seller. These laptops are supposed to be outfitted with Core Duos, only slightly slower than the Macbook Pros, and will have a widescreen 13.3" display that should make them large enough for most people's wants yet small enough for those who desire compactness. They will also be able to run Mac OS X and Windows XP side by side, at relatively low cost. I think a lot of my students would buy this one, where they wouldn't buy the iMac or Macbook Pro. I think a lot of other people will be that way as well. However, if you're at the other end of the scale and like to splurge, the 17" Macbook Pro is reportedly just a few days away from release.

Meanwhile, Apple is doing very well. Sales have more than tripled over the past six years, much of it due to the iPod and iTunes Music Store, which now account for about half of Apple's sales. Apple has bought 50 acres of land in Cupertino to build a new Apple Campus, since they have rented every square foot of available office space in Cupertino and still need more. On news of Apple's sales report, Apple stock surged $3 (almost 5%).

Want to see something freaky? Go to this site and check out the video of the Robotic Chair. It collapses into six pieces, completely breaking apart. Then watch what happens. [WMV video; via Engadget.] The table videos are kind of cute.

Not so cute is the FBI's apparent new policy: when an investigative reporter dies, they get first dibs to view all the reporter's notes and documents and classify whatever they want. Seems to me to be less a matter of national security and more an issue of hiding dirty laundry. Not to mention the dirty tricks they appear to be using to accomplish this.

Naturally, the media is in an uproar, blasting the FBI and shouting "no fair" from the treetops. My question is, why didn't the media do this when they knew Bush was lying to the American people about Iraq? It seems the media only gets outraged when the government screws with them, but not when the government screws the people.

The MacBook

I think that's the one that's going to change a lot. Certainly in my part of town.

The MacBook Pro is for people who have a lot of money to drop on a laptop. The iMac is certainly big, as it's cheap and fast, and it looks good. But laptops are a key market, and when the next consumer Mactel laptop comes out, I think that's going to sell a lot--especially timed perhaps a month or so after Windows officially gets running on Mac computers.

Rumors now have the MacBook coming out in May, on the tail of announcements introducing Boot Camp and Parallels, two products that allow you to run Windows on Macs, either alternately or alongside with Mac OS X. Apple is honing the consumer laptop as well--better resolution (1280 x 720), a down point of past iBooks; the new resolution is almost the same as a 15" Powerbook, but is on a 13.3" widescreen display. This is a compromise between the tiny 12-inchers and larger screens, with good resolution without making the screen detail so tiny that you have to set all applications to display at zoomed-up sizes. The laptop will reportedly come with a Core Duo--not a solo, which would have hobbled it, making it harder to run dual OS's.

And that last is a key point. In the classes I teach, usually only about 1 in 20 students has a Mac (just about right for market share, in fact). When I show them OS X in class as a demo, most are impressed and many want to buy one--but too many are wedded to Windows. But with a cheap laptop that can run both? I know a lot of my students will buy one...

For me, I made my decision almost a year ago, when I bought the last Powerbook G4 out of the gate. I buy a new laptop every three years, so it'll be two more years before I snag a MacBook Pro. But by then, the kinks will have been worked out, and who knows--with Intel talking about quad-core processor chips a year from now, we might be looking at some wicked fast laptop chips by 2008.

In the meantime, I might just invest in an iMac....

And the Long Wait Is Over

Man, things just take so long! We had to wait one whole day after Apple released Boot Camp's free dual-boot system before they finally came out with a virtualization solution that runs both operating systems side-by-side! Why does it take them forever to get these things out?

A company called Parallels is actually offering a beta version of this software for free--so if you have an Intel Mac and a copy of any version of Windows, MS-DOS, Linux, OS/2, or whatever, then get to their site, download the beta, and run multiple simultaneous OS's now--so they tell us.

One can only presume that they released this now because of Apple's move--they want people to go to their solution before they get too comfortable with Boot Camp.

According to the site, the software is easy to install, provides near-native performance, and can take full advantage of dual-core chips. No news yet on whether it provides full hardware support, or has any problems with video or audio drivers. Already some people are reporting that they've downloaded and installed it, and have gotten very fast performance with it (follow that link to see a flash movie showing XP on a Mac using Parallels); given that the news is just a few hours old as of this writing, it will naturally take a bit more time before full reports can come in. I myself am wondering if you can do full-screen switches, whether the Mac's zoom feature will work in Windows mode (the Windows zoom sucks), and whether it will survive resolution switches reasonably well.

Nevertheless, this is pretty damn neat stuff, and may get me to start looking at buying an iMac sooner than I thought....

Apple Turns 30, Goes to Boot Camp

Happy 30th Anniversary, Apple. Just weeks after hackers came up with a way to dual-boot Windows XP on an Intel Mac, Apple seems to be figuring that people might as well be doing it right. Previously mum on any work to make Macs run Windows in any way, Apple has spilled the beans and is now making available a utility called "Boot Camp," an app that takes you through the steps necessary to install XP. It requires you to have a "bona fide installation disc for Microsoft Windows XP, Service Pack 2" in addition to a blank CD, the latest version of OS X, 10GB of hard disk space--and of course, an Intel Mac.

The software then takes you step by step through the procedure, holding your hand as you burn a customized install disk and then use it to put XP on your new Mac. This differs from the hackers' setup in a few significant ways: first, it does the hand-holding part, which the hackers hadn't gotten to yet (they're probably now throwing up their hands at the weeks of work they put into it and wasted now), making it easy enough for anyone to do the dual-boot setup. I'm no hacker, but I'm a pretty high-level novice, and I'd have had difficulty going through the process. The second difference is that this software is more advanced, with drivers to allow Windows to use Mac hardware (e.g., the different keyboard) effectively.

Boot Camp is still a beta, and is not supported by Apple--you'll get no phone help if something goes wrong. The instalklation will require the hard drive to be wiped. It doesn't work perfectly yet, but it appears to be the best deal in town. The software is officially supposed to be part of the next big OS release, Leopard (10.5), due out late this year; presumably it'll have all the bugs worked out by then.

Like the hackers' dual-boot solution, Boot Camp does not allow for both operating systems to work at the same time. You have to shut down one OS before you can boot up the other. You can choose to boot XP or OS X by holding down the option (alt) key at startup. Rumors have it that "virtualization software" will also be finalized with Leopard that will allow for Windows to be used simultaneously with OS X, but that is not yet official; in the meantime, a third-party company has announced its own version of virtualization software, and Microsoft is known to be working on Virtual PC for Intel Macs to achieve the same ends.

This is seen as big news for Apple, whose stock rose 6% on the announcement. Analysts are calling this a watershed, saying Apple could explode its market share. I don't know if Apple will allow official resellers to sell Macs with this option and Windows XP pre-installed, but I'll bet that if it's possible, someone will start doing it soon. Many will want to get a Windows Mac for the style, but others will for the performance--the new Intel Macs are reported to be very fast Windows machines.

Then there's the argument over whether this will kill the Mac, kill Windows, or bring the two into some kind of equilibrium. Some say that software makers will see no reason to port to the Mac OS, making it irrelevant; others say that Windows users will start using OS X and ditch Microsoft as soon as they see how much cooler and easier to use OS X is. Probably the truth will be somewhere in the middle. Even if Apple gets torpedoed as a software company, it will probably succeed as a hardware company. But it's difficult to imagine the Mac OS really dying off.

For now, it's simply an exciting change. As for my preferences, the package is not quite there yet--it'll be there when virtualization comes of age and I can run both operating systems side by side. I don't want to have to shut down the OS in order to start up a different program--that's so 1980's. I remember when you had to do that when there was no hard disk, and each program came on a floppy with the Mac OS on it, or later when SCSI required you to shut down and restart every time you wanted to swap a cable out.

No, I'll probably wait until next December, when Leopard (to be previewed in August) comes out and the first revision of the iMac is released. By January of next year, I may well have a 20" iMac sitting on my desk to replace the aging Celeron that sits there today.

Next step: convince my school to buy Macs and not Dells the next time a new purchase is justified. Ah, the day when Macs rule the world is coming nigh! Bwa hahahahahaaa!

Dual Boot Is Here

In case you haven't been reading the news about Macs, the contest is over: a method to install both Mac OS X and Windows XP onto an Intel Mac has been developed. The method is posted (in Wiki format) on this page.

In theory, this will allow you to dual-boot both Mac and Windows OS's without them interfering with each other. There are some caveats, however. First, you need a Windows PC to create the customized install CD to put Windows on your Mac; presumably, to create that install CD, you need a generalized Windows install CD (not one keyed to a specific machine). Next, the process is not a snap; probably only advanced users could carry it all out (I could probably do it if I really bore down and concentrated on it, though I expect there'd be three or four frustrating I-can't-get-this-to-work roadblocks along the way). Next, it requires further fine-tuning, such as remapping the keyboard (to get ALT-CTRL-DEL or the Windows button to work). Installing Windows requires a hard disk reformat, which means you have to wipe your hard drive. And finally, it doesn't work perfectly; there's no good video driver that'll work, so high-end video games or anything else needing special graphic support won't work yet.

That said, the dual boot is described as working very well, and most of the software and hardware works well, certainly better than one might expect just days into development.

Since this is so new, information is still scarce; I have not heard yet how it works, like how does one switch from one OS to the other. What key command is used? Does Windows appear in a window, or is it a full-screen switch? Nor have I heard about performance issues--if you are using a Core Solo, the slowest chip, does the dual-boot operation slow down the computer significantly? How much RAM is needed?

As more users implement the hack and start building experience, we'll hear more about it. Moreover, one would expect development to progress quickly. I presume that in time (several months from now?) someone will sell or give away (open source) an easy-to-use package, which will--one would hope--simply require you to insert a Windows XP Install CD, then it would generate a customized install CD image which you could burn on to a new CD. From there, you'd use the new CD to install Windows, hopefully without much hassle. Alternately (and perhaps to avoid digital rights issues), there might be an app you could run that would "handle" the original install CD, adding the needed hacks as the install takes place. By the time a simplified solution exists, most driver issues should be fixed and you could use both operating systems with only minor inconveniences.

Even at that, it wouldn't be something just anyone could do, and until it becomes officially accepted by Apple and Microsoft, it'll probably stay that way. And I'm guessing that that won't happen in the near future. Apple clearly is not encouraging this, at least not yet (or else they'd have worked to make it possible themselves), and Microsoft owns Virtual PC, which means that the new dual-boot solution could cost Microsoft a few hundred bucks per Mac every time people use the open-source option instead of Virtual PC (which is still under development and doesn't work on Intel Macs yet).

More news on this as it comes out.

...And Again

If you recall, I recently posted on how shallow and uninformed most reporting is when it comes to Mac technical issues, and recent articles have borne out this view. A Swedish Mac enthusiast issued a challenge to see if anyone could hack in to the system from the outside and cause any damage. One user did so within 30 minutes, leading to articles like this one which decried the Mac a security sieve that could be easily attacked. There was a huge flurry of stories and again, the Mac's reputation as a secure system appeared to be shot down.

But like with the "virus" outbreak, the reports turned out to be a load of bull, with the description "overblown" being an understatement. The articles made it sound like anyone could hack into your Mac via the Internet with ease. It turns out that the Swedish tester allowed people joining the challenge to access via a local access account--essentially, he granted everyone internal access, just as if they were sitting at the computer itself. This is like opening all the doors to your house and then expressing amazement at how easily burglars you invite in can carry off your TV set. What's more, the challenge was to access a server, which is more vulnerable than a common consumer machine.

So the University of Wisconsin, which originally questioned the veracity of the initial contest, set up their own challenge. They hooked up the same computer, also as a server, to a high-speed Internet connection, and left it there for 38 hours with an open call for people to try to hack it. This time, they did not allow local access, representing a much more realistic environment. There were a huge number of attempts, but no one was successful.

So much for the "Mac is not secure" twaddle. If you think the Mac is an insecure platform because of malware or hacking, please take note that both flurries of reports to that effect were bogus. There are no Mac viruses, malware has been shown possible but does not yet exist (and the proofs of concept were lame to boot), and your Mac is not open to hacking from the outside--unless you work actively to allow people access.

Got that?

Bad Reporting re: Mac "Virus" Scare

Reading Google News, I've been watching a steady stream of "news" reports go by that make me doubt how seriously I should take most of the computer reporting out there. There are just so many stories out there which are completely misinformed, I have to wonder how many of these people went to journalism school. Let me give a few examples:

Apple's OS X Suddenly Not So Secure After All (FOX)
Security scares mount for Apple Macintosh users (USA Today)
First ever virus for Mac OS X (Ferret.com)
Apple Mac Virus Is Real Threat - The Apple Mac malware threat is real, according to anti-virus experts (GameSHOUT)
Second Mac virus in the wild (SC Magazine)
McAfee Provides Protection Against Mac Os X Exploits and Viruses (Hardware Zone)
First Mac virus found in wild (Globe and Mail)
Has the “Mac virus” struck your computer? (Austin American-Statesman)

Read most of these and you'll find out about "viruses" hitting the Mac as told by "experts." Well, not exactly. First of all, there are no viruses. A trojan, a worm, and a vulnerability. The "experts" and "researchers"? People who work for anti-virus software and security companies, who have a vested business interest in making people think they have viruses so they can sell their product.

But the trojan, worm and vulnerability are real, right? Depends on what you mean. The trojan and worm are "proof of concept," and don't do any damage (though Symantec, another anti-virus vendor, is claiming the trojan does damage files and the OS, completely unsupported from what I have ascertained). Furthermore, the trojan requires the user to enter a system admin password in order for the trojan to work, unlikely since the user will have just tried to open an image file. And the fake image file has to be downloaded (not viewed on a browser) or sent as file transfer by iChat, which not too many people ever do. The worm, meanwhile, requires not only two Macs using Bluetooth to be in the same room, it also requires both Macs to have an OS almost a year out of date, when most Macs update automatically. And it requires you to actively accept a file transfer over Bluetooth, which can be immediately confirmed as fake by asking the other Mac user in the room if they're really trying to send you something. Oh yeah, and it self-destructs tomorrow, leaving no damage. And the vulnerability? Just that--it's an opening, not an actual exploit. It means that no one is actually trying to damage your computer, it's simply possible that such a thing could happen.

Which is really what all three of these represent: potential malware, not actual malware. Two harmless proof-of-concepts and one vulnerability. With the proof-of-concepts being almost ridiculously hard to acquire. Frankly, I doubt I could acquire either of them even if I went out on the Internet and aggressively tried to. And what's more, you don't need anti-virus software to guard against them--though the news stories, which could easily be just copies of press releases by anti-virus vendors, don't tell you that. The vulnerability? Go to Safari's preferences and turn off the "Open 'safe' files after downloading" option. The worm? Update your software through the Software Update control panel (it's free, and probably it's already been done--if there's nothing in Software Update to install, you're OK). The trojan? Don't enter your admin password unless you are knowingly installing software or changing system preferences. To be completely safe, know that the filename suffix ".tgz" (signifying compressed files) is one you should avoid opening unless you know what you are doing.

Strange that all these stories trying to scare you don't mention these simple protections against the malware, which doesn't do any harm anyway. So, should you buy anti-virus software? Not yet, certainly. In fact, the Solution published by Sophos, an anti-virus security firm, actually didn't work, mistakenly identifying the Bluetooth worm where none existed, sending users into a false panic and wasting their time. In the future, when Mac malware actually poses a threat, you'll need security. But not yet. The problem is, when all these news outlets are reporting misinformed stories generated by businesses out to make a buck, how will you know when it's really unsafe out there? I guess you'll just have to research hard and read as many stories as you can--there are some out there that tell the real story, though not many.

Or you come come to this site--when I think I need anti-virus protection, I'll certainly blog on it.

Oompa, Inqtana--Any Real Threat?

Well, it certainly seems like someone has been quite the busy beaver recently. Not even a day after the big alarm about the "Oompa" (alternately called "Leap-A") trojan, and already a second piece of Mac malware has surfaced. This one is apparently a worm designed to use Bluetooth to spread itself, but like Oompa, is harmless, and even has a February self-destruct date. Both Oompa and the new malware, titled Inqtana-A, are "proof of concept" malware, meaning that they are just there to see if they can work, and are not intended to do any real damage.

In fact, the Inqtana worm exploits a vulnerability that was patched by Apple eight months ago, so it will only affect you if you don't have your Software Update turned on, and are still using OS X v. 10.3. Otherwise, Inqtana can't touch you even if it were loose "in the wild"--which it is not.

So here's the question: do these two pieces of malware mean that the Mac is no longer "malware-free"? That's kind of hard to say. The Mac has had a few "first" malwares, including the rootkit hack called "Opener" about a year ago. So technically, there is malware out there for the Mac. On the other hand, none of it is anything that you are remotely likely to get. Both the Opener and the recent Oompa trojan trigger the administrative password protection, making it unlikely that they would ever get spread; Inqtana also prompts the user for acceptance, making it much less likely to spread. The "Opener" hack was never seen in the wild, and the Oompa trojan probably didn't get past the first or maybe second generation of iteration, due to Apple's security measures. The new Inqtana would only affect non-updated Macs, and most Mac users update--and even then, it doesn't spread very well and will self-destruct soon.

All three of these are proof-of-concept and not intended to actually cause harm. All they do is make clear that malware can infect a Mac--which is something we've all known from the start. None will be infecting your computer. So from that perspective, the Mac can still be said to be malware-free (with zero viruses, even in proof-of-concept form).

But the release of Oompa and Inqtana within just a few days of each other does show that something is going on. Possibly it is one hacker churning this out. Or possibly the Inqtana hacker released their malware-in-progress when they saw reports of Oompa. Possibly Inqtana was out there and was only noticed after the Oompa publicity. Or maybe it's simply a coincidence, with one or perhaps both pieces of malware being out there for some time and just being discovered at about the same time.

Conclusion: you don't need anti-virus software for your Mac--yet. But you should keep an eye on Mac security news (maybe add "Mac virus" to your configurable Google News page), because eventually there will be Mac malware, it's just a question of when.

Does this mean that the Mac is no longer more secure than Windows? Well, consider that Windows malware numbers around 60,000, and that the Mac's security is still intrinsically better than Windows. Even if a hundred actual and harmful Mac viruses were to be released tomorrow, the Mac would still be safer than Windows.

First Mac OS X "Virus"? Not Quite...

A lot of noise is being generated by web news sites clamoring about the "first virus" discovered that attacks OS X. A closer look at the stories, however, reveals that the alarm is coming from a company that wants to sell Mac-based anti-virus software or services--something we've seen before, unreliable because they have a vested interest in scaring people into buying what they are selling.

An even closer look shows that this "virus" or "worm" is nothing but a very ineffective trojan horse. It is not a virus. First of all, it is not self-propagating, despite claims in the media; it requires active, two-step user intervention--no, user authentication--to set it off. Second, the user authentication must be highly ignorant: the file is supposed to be an image, but when you double-click on it, it asks for your administrative password, which any Mac user of more than one week would instantly recognize as system-level event. Such a ruse is immediately obvious--a photo never requires a password, certainly not your password, a password that then opens up access to your operating system. If you've used a Mac and installed anything at all, you recognize the password as necessary to install software or gain access to the inner workings of your computer, something a photo should not be doing. The security company ringing the alarms calls "ridiculous" the point that user authentication is required: "Many PC viruses needed user interaction to set off infection, he pointed out, and this was no different." Baloney. This one requires an administrative password, not just a double-click on a file. Not even close to being the same thing.

So, yes, if a person is stupid enough to then enter their password, then--shock!--their system is compromised. But this is less a case of malware than it is of extreme user gullibility. I mean, I could direct any computer user to delete their system files or initialize their hard disk, and if they're naive enough, they would do it. Does that constitute a "virus" or any weakness of the OS? Hell no. It means the user is not too bright. And to propagate, it would require a string of dumb users to contribute their security passwords to pass it on each and every time. Not too bloody likely. Such a trojan horse could never propagate very far at all.

Compare this to Windows, where double-clicking on a virus file immediately infects the machine, without asking for verification. That's one big difference between the two systems; one gives you due warning and requires your willing assistance, whereas the other one allows you to be easily taken in unless you are very careful or knowledgeable. Anyone might try to open an image file, and on Windows, that'd be enough to infect the computer. How many would open an image file and then actively type in a password that allows access to their operating system?

An analogy to better understand might be an intruder at your door. You hear someone at the door, and have no peephole; you simply open the door and the intruder barges in and ransacks your house. That's Windows. On the Mac, you hear someone at the door, and there is a peephole; you see that it's someone dressed in a ski mask, poised to break in. If you then decide to open the door, it's your own damned fault.

Apple could "plug" this "hole" simply by adding text to the password dialog box: "You have opened an application which could access your system resources and cause damage. If you did not double-click an application, or do not fully trust the source of this software, then do not enter your password." Problem solved.

A final point: I can't find any story on the issue which even describes any damage done by the file--many even reported that the trojan even failed to execute properly. Meh. Some threat. As I've always held, the Mac is not invulnerable--but it does have good security, which, if anything, this whole episode proves.

Core Duo iMac Review

Ars Technica, a great tech site, has an excellent and comprehensive review of the new 17" Core Duo iMac. The bottom line: it's fast if you're using "universal" apps (ones designed to work on both PPC and Intel chips), and acceptable if you're using PPC-only apps (which is still most 3rd-party apps). At $1300, it's an excellent value, according to the reviewer. Check it out.

Since I recently bought my Powerbook (less than a year ago), I have no great motivation to buy a new Mac any time soon. However, once I find that someone has a real and workable solution to dual-loading Mac OS X and Windows XP on an iMac, I will be sorely tempted--and may give in--to buying an iMac to replace my aging Celeron Windows box.

But Do They Do Windows?

Okay, Steve Jobs introduced two new Intel Duo Macs today--an iMac and "MacBook," both sporting dual-core CPUs, iSight built-in, and the usual round of goodies. But conspicuously absent from the keynote--and, to my surprise, also from the post-keynote web coverage--was the question of whether the new Macs can run Windows, and if one will have the ability to launch both side-by-side, switching easily between the two, without overtaxing the CPU. Although Microsoft's representative appeared on-stage during the keynote and promised that MS Office for Mac would be supported for another five years (I could have sworn they'd stopped development with the last version, but apparently I'm wrong), neither she nor Jobs uttered a word about how cool it would be to run both systems on a Mac computer.

In fact, I had to do a search before I found anything on the subject, and found an AP story on Forbes reported that Apple has reiterated its claim that it will not "thwart" users who want to install Windows on the Mac. However, it's pretty clear that Apple is not facilitating that option--yet.

Which means that if dual-boots and switching are possible, it'll be a third-party hack, for now, at least. Intel's Virtualization Technology promises something more advanced, and you've got to figure that Apple is going to jump on the bandwagon once people start doing it more.

One possible reason that Apple is holding back is the foreseen developer's conflict, where software makers may drop Mac versions of software if they feel that Mac users will all be running Windows in tandem anyway. Perhaps Apple is not quite ready with it's Dharma project (if true), and wants to introduce and popularize the development toolset before actively encouraging the dual-boot idea.

Goodbye, Powerbook

Not mine. The whole line.

So the keynote is over, and we have quite a few new toys to play with. I'm not going to go over the software, because frankly, from the sound of it (reading the feed from MacRumors), all the software updates sound marginal. It's the hardware that's going to make the difference. New Intel iMacs and... MacBooks, the (slightly questionable) new name for the high-end portables (no more PowerBooks). Dual-core iMac and MacBook. Very fast-sounding, cool-sounding machines.

Just one thing. There was no mention whatsoever of dual-booting OS's.

What's up with that?

It's late, and I gotta get to sleep. I guess I'll find out in the morning, if anyone knows by then....

Back to School

So tomorrow is the first day I have going back to work after the Winter vacation. I caught a break in timing, in that the semester started on a Friday, and I don't have classes on that day. This week, Monday is a holiday. Tuesday, tomorrow, will be my first day back. And a good semester it should be. I have three classes, but they are back-to-back on two days of the week, which means slightly longer but many fewer days. I've got the web site up to speed, and it all looks well-prepared and ready to go. I just have to figure out how to deal with it all with a broken foot.

One particular point of interest will be the MacWorld Expo in San Francisco, with Jobs' keynote coming at (I believe) 2 a.m. on Wednesday morning, Japan time. (Rumor roundups here and here.) If, as is predicted, the new Intel Macs come out, this should change the computing landscape some, and that'll mean changes possibly for my students as well. It's always good when something big is happening in the field you're teaching, it gives you a chance to go over all the aspects with your class.

In the past, I have set aside half of one class session each semester to demo the Mac OS, in part to give students another point of view to better understand what an OS is, and in part to show them how cool the system is. Perhaps more than that, they see how I use it myself every day--my monitor is almost always mirrored on the class monitor, and they can see how I navigate through things. And every semester, a good number of students come back very interested in the Mac, despite having seen little else but Windows machines all their lives. I know that if I could tell them they could get Mac and Windows all in one package, a lot more of them would make the switch.

So it should be a fun semester. Heck, if I'm lucky, I'll be able to convince my school of the wisdom of shelling out a few bucks for a Mac Mini, should it become available with Intel and Windows. Our IT people wouldn't know what to do with a Mac, but hey--I can do maintenance that side of things a lot easier than they can. It'll take me a lot less time, and be cheaper for the school to boot!

Flash! MRAM?

Here's a bit of Mac news, some more speculation on what will be released at MWSF in a few days. They're saying that new Mac laptops may use flash memory associated with the CPU so that startup and general performance is increased.

Huh? Let's go over that. First, you have to understand what "volatile" means in computerese. See, a computer's CPU and RAM (like its 'brain' and 'memory') can only hold data while they are turned on. Switch off the power, and they go blank. That's "volatile." Imagine it's like you lose all your memory whenever you go to sleep, and have to re-learn everything when you wake up. That's why a computer takes so long to start up: it's loading all the data from the relatively slow hard drive (which is non-volatile) back into the relatively fast RAM and the CPU--a lot of information taking a long path to its destination. The main point is that when you boot up, the computer has to 're-learn' how to work.

Using flash memory speeds that up. Flash memory is both chip-based and non-volatile. Shut down the computer, and the flash chip still retains all the data. Turn the computer on, and the data (stored in a "cache," located on or near the CPU) is instantly available. Your computer should be able to start faster and perform better.

This would simply be the first step in a line to even faster computers, however. Many researchers are working to perfect something called "MRAM," a magnetic-based chip technology which would make CPUs and RAM (not just the caches) non-volatile. In other words, if you turned off your computer, it would never forget anything. Turn on the power, and the computer turns on instantly, like a light switch.

You would probably still need to re-boot the operating systems from time to time as they get unstable when used continuously over time. Still, it would be a great feature--like changing from a crank-start automobile to a push-button Prius.

But until MRAM becomes a common reality, flash caches will do quite nicely, I'm sure. It does make me wonder, however, at how many innovations will really come out of Apple at the MWSF, so many have been reported. Probably, as usual, fewer than half will be true. But the closer we come to the keynote, more accurate information will start leaking out.

The Dharma Project

When I last blogged on the Mac going Intel, someone made a comment that made me stop and think: essentially, that if one could run Windows apps on a Mac, that there would be no reason to make a native Mac port. Just write for Windows, and you'd get everybody; the Mac people could just switch to Windows to run your app.

There wasn't much I could say to that, really. I could argue that the Mac OS is more stylish, intuitive, etc., and while that might be a draw for users to go to the Mac, to a software company looking at the bottom line, these would probably not be nearly important enough to spend time and money for a Mac build. A better argument would be that the Mac OS is usually 2-3 years ahead of Windows in adding features, so developers that want to be more at the cutting edge would have an incentive to port to the Mac--not to mention security and other advantages. Whatever way, it seems inevitable that the Mac will allow a simultaneous Windows boot--but I couldn't imagine that Steve Jobs would overlook a hole as big as the one my commenter mentioned (one that is now being discussed at length in many Mac forums).

This is where Dharma comes in, formerly called "Yellow Box." It's a development environment which allows programmers to develop Windows and Mac OS X versions of software with much greater ease. It's just a rumor at present, but it would make sense. It would be an equally if not more appealing alternative to simply making everything Windows-only. It would be more universal (not everyone with a Mac would also run Windows), and would be less expensive than a full second version of the software for another OS. Other enticements would be a better programming environment; I will not pretend to understand, but I'm reading many programmers saying that they'd love to program using Apple's Cocoa environment. If true, and if using Yellow Box for that purpose would allow programmers to produce a Mac port with much greater ease, you'd probably see far more Mac-compatible software than you do now, and more reason for users to make the switch.

As evidence that it's more than just a rumor, this image has started showing up--one of Apple's Safari browser running on Windows. Unless it's a well-made hoax, this matches up with reports that Yellow Box could allow for good multi-OS ports being produced with relative ease.

It is still far from the time we can know if such a strategy would be effective, or if it is even true. Maybe Jobs has something else in mind entirely--but one thing for sure, he's got to be aware of this eventual possibility, and must have a strategy for dealing with it.

iPredict

So the current consensus is that it is all but certain that Jobs will introduce the new MacTels at the MacWorld Expo in San Francisco two weeks from now. Probably it will be a Mac Mini and/or an iBook with a Yonah processor.

Not as much ballyhoo is being made of this as I would expect, and I don't understand why not. This could be a huge move by Apple, and possibly could deal a serious blow to Microsoft, even though it may seem like Apple is sidling up to the software giant.

Here's why: in the past, switching meant a big investment: new machines, new OS--but mostly, new software, which could cost thousands of dollars.

With MacTel, you can switch with simply your next natural purchase of a new CPU box, which you would do anyways.

All of this depends, of course, on Apple providing a smooth and slick way to easily switch between operating systems. That when you start up your new MacTel, both Mac OS and your choice of Windows or Linux would start up simultaneously, and you could just jump between them at a button's touch--probably with a Command-key that you could customize.

The key to this could be a new Intel announcement about something the call the "Intel Virtualization Technology":

Virtualization enhanced by Intel Virtualization Technology will allow a platform to run multiple operating systems and applications in independent partitions. With virtualization, one computer system can function as multiple "virtual" systems.

Since Windows will run natively on Intel chips, it is probable that by a keystroke, possibly using the Mac OS's fast user switching capability, you could go from iMovie on OS X to MS Access on Windows XP in a flash, or if you wish, by a nice 3-D transition. Apple would probably be smart to bundle Windows with any new Mac purchase, seeing as how many Windows install discs are keyed to one piece of hardware and won't work on other Windows-ready machines.

The benefits should be obvious. Malware attacks Windows, not the Mac, and spread via Internet activity, especially email. So a user could do all their web and email work on OS X (as I do now). Similarly, the iLife suite is far better than the scattered 3rd-party software for Windows that achieves the same end, so that would also be Mac-based. On the other hand, business-based apps as well as gaming would occupy the Windows side of the partition. But with easy switching, that would be a very fine distinction, and the two would flow almost seamlessly.

Almost. The control-versus-command hotkey dichotomy would confuse a good many people until something could be worked out. Perhaps the keyboard could be mapped so that the Windows control key could be the same as the Mac command key; the Mac's control key could then be a secondary one. Any way you look at it, some keys would change place, but at least you wouldn't have to re-learn the keyboard every time you switched between OS's.

But that's just the beginning, and where the real battle begins. After a few years, if enough people are using hybrid Mac-Windows machines, the question for developers would become whether Mac or Windows was the best place to plant their products--at least enough to create a Mac port of the app. This has been a big strike against Apple, maybe the biggest, that software makers haven't seen enough of a market in the Mac to cater to that community. Yes, Explorer and Office will not be made for the Mac anymore, but Apple is very close to finishing their own office suite, and Explorer has always been a terrible browser in any case. Other reasons may also push 3rd party companies to the Mac, including security and the difference in environments.

It will also be a question of whether users will prefer Windows or Mac OS. Today, many prefer Windows, but do so as they claim that the Mac OS is "harder to use." I don't know how many times I've heard that, and wondered in amazement. The Mac OS is clearly easier to use (fewer steps, more consistency and intuitiveness, better visual interface). The perceived "difficulty" is due to the fact that these people are simply used to using Windows, and the Mac OS runs differently. That will likely change as more people get around to using the Mac--especially after they try doing a simple find-file with the two systems.

It won't happen suddenly, but I would expect the Mac's market share to increase a great deal within the next two to three years. At the very least, this new shift will change the whole OS paradigm.

Google Earth Beta for Mac OS X

Just ran into this link to download Google Earth for OS X. It is a very cool app. It's the one that flies around the globe, zooming in and out of any photographed area, with tons of notation and bookmark features. Very fun to play with. The link I provided just above takes you to a blog that links to a download site. The download site is a pay-for-immediate-access and free-if-you-wait type; just go to the bottom of the page, click the "Free" button, wait about half a minute, enter the anti-spambot code, and it'll download. The app is slightly buggy, but very usable. Enjoy. (Note: this very recent beta version will probably run only on 10.4.3 (the current OS X version), and might be sluggish on an iBook or older Mac.)

MacTel Early?

Apple's announcement of their Intel-powered line of computers claimed the new Macs would not start appearing until June of 2006. It is becoming more and more likely, however, that at least one and maybe a few Intel Macs will be released as early as next month, half a year early.

Though Apple, as always, is keeping closed-mouthed about this, rumors have proliferated that a Mac Mini, an iBook, and/or a PowerBook with an Intel CPU will be unveiled at the MacWorld Expo about a month from now.

A new development seems to bolster that rumor: Steve Jobs is going to keynote the expo. Since all the Macs and iPods have recently been updated and the usual reason for a keynote by Jobs is to release a new product, it seems likely that this will indeed be the case.

Just a few days ago, Think Secret reported that not only will the MacTel Mini be released in January, but that it will be reborn as a digital hub, including a built-in iPod dock and DVR-like video recording software, presumably to allow you to record any show and then see it on your iPod. That rumor has a flaw, however: Apple just recently opened up the video section at the iTunes Music Store, with new TV episodes downloading for $2 a pop. Why give people the means to do it for free? Yes, the pat version would be without commercials, but it seems counterproductive for Apple to give people such an easy alternative to buying their latest iTMS offerings--especially if the Video iPod would allow viewers to fast-forward past commercials. Not to mention they'd be greatly ticking off the media companies they're trying to arrange an association with.

A non-DVR and non-iPod-docking MacTel Mini, on the other hand, seems far more likely, mostly because of the general Apple sales strategy that was apparent from the start. Think about it: buy one computer, a cheap one, no less, and you can have the Mac OS and Windows. Make those easily switchable (which might be hard on RAM), and you have a killer product.

In order to switch to a Mac, people used to have to throw away everything they had previously bought, and start over with new hardware and software. When the Mac Mini was introduced, they could keep their monitor and keyboard, and only had to throw away their software and start over again. With the MacTel Mini, they will not have to throw anything away. They can have it all--run their existing Windows apps, and switch to Mac OS X whenever they feel like it.

But why do that? Why go to the Mac OS at all? One easy answer is to avoid viruses and other security headaches--a major concern for a lot of people. They can do their email and Internet work on Mac OS X using Mail and Safari, or buy/download other software solutions, and then switch to Windows for other stuff. Keeping networking tasks on Mac OS X would make virus infections near impossible (until hackers start targeting Mac OS--though there's no guarantee they'll have nearly as much success as they had getting through Windows' sieve-like security). Safe computing without having to buy Anti-virus software.

And that's assuming that they won't be tempted by Apple's own snazzy style and impressive software suite. With a Mac, you'd get an integrated suite of iLife apps with the computer--iTunes, iMovie, iPhoto, iDVD, and Garage Band, as well as Safari, Mail, Address Book, iCal, iChat, Dictionary, and the QuickTime/DVD Player video apps. Not a bad free package to come with the computer.

True, many PCs come with Word and Excel (though usually not PowerPoint). But Apple offers the iWork suite for $80, and while the current bundle only includes word processing and presentation software, a spreadsheet program called "Numbers" is rumored to be on the way. Say they introduce that app at the January Mac Expo and up the iWork price to $99. That's still way below the $365 price tag for the standard version of MS Office, even well below the $220 you'd pay just for an MS Office upgrade. And all of the iWork apps are compatible with MS Office docs, able to both open and save in the formats most people use. When you're buying a computer, an extra $100 for that kind of suite is not something that would slow most people down. Of course, if Apple were smart, they'd bundle iWork with the MacTel Mini for free for at least the first year or two.

The reason that'd be a smart move is because (at least I believe) the MacTel move will prove to be the biggest threat to Microsoft's domination of the computer market that we have ever witnessed. Providing a platform which can house both operating systems is the first truly viable switching environment--and as I've stated before, I think that a lot of people will say that for a few hundred extra bucks, getting a MacTel Mini will be well worth it. From there, it's just a matter of people getting hooked on the Mac OS as they use it side-by-side with Windows and see the difference. (I wonder, will the new MacTel Keyboards have a Windows key?)

Heck, it may not even be a price hike to buy a Mac--the only serious WinTel contender against the Mac Mini is AOpen's Mini PC, a virtual physical clone of the Mac Mini--and it's priced significantly higher than the Mac. A Mac Mini would set you back $500, but an almost identically outfitted AOpen would cost you $620; the high-end Mac Mini is $700, but the similar high-end AOpen is $890. For the same form and performance, Apple's Mac Mini is actually 20% cheaper. And the AOpen doesn't even come with TV-video output.

Will it really be that tough a choice?

New Powerbooks, Power Macs Out

It's getting late and I have to give midterm exams tomorrow, so I won't say much. But I will say that I am not disappointed that I went ahead and bought my Powerbook when I did, four months ago. The new upgrades that came out just a few hours ago are not really much to write home about. They have higher-resolution displays (1440 x 960 on the 15-inch, as opposed to my 1280 x 854, for example) which are supposed to be brighter; they allegedly have a longer battery life, but these claims are always highly questionable, no matter who makes the computers; and they have made the optical Superdrive standard for all Powerbooks, which just means the lowly 12-incher now has one, too.

Aside from that: pretty much nothing. No processor upgrade, not even the smallest speed bump. Essentially, they improved the display and juiced up the battery a little. Ho-hum. Apparently they couldn't get squat from IBM for the last of the G4 PowerPC Powerbooks.

The Power Macs, on the other hand, have what may be a more significant upgrade: dual-core CPUs. The CPU clock speeds also remain the same, like in the Powerbook, but the dual core has got to count for something. Already, the G5 performs very well, hertz for hertz, compared to Pentiums; a dual-core, dual-processor "Quad" Power Mac will likely be an impressive beast. 4 MB of L2 cache, yikes. Of course, the price matches the hardware: $3,300 for the top-of-the-line Power Mac Quad, and that's before shelling out at least $300 for at least another 2 GB of RAM (Apple's 512 MB included is clearly not intended to be enough for anyone--it's a given people will add RAM by the gigabytes).

But hey, I shelled out that much on my last Powerbook, the Titanium, three and a half years ago. If I did not need a portable for work and could spend the money for a home computer, this one would not in the least be a disappointment for me. It'd certainly make my Powerbook's single-core single-G4 CPU look, well, pathetic. Not that I'm complaining. And frankly, I wouldn't use the speed and power enough to justify going that far. But raw CPU power for a computer geek is like raw engine power for a car geek. It's just so cool to have.

No Osborne Effect

I recently reported on Apple's increase in market share, which has been qualified since then: Apple's increase was 30%, not 50% (Apple increased sales by about 45% as the market as a whole saw an increase of 17%). Apple's market share has increased from 3.3% to 4.3%. This may seem small, but even beyond the fact that many individual PC makers would like that kind of market share, the increase has significance.

This is particularly significant considering something that nobody seems to be mentioning now: just a few months ago, people were predicting the Mac's doom because Jobs announced that Apple was switching to Intel one year later. The idea was that Jobs had gaffed into an Osborne Effect in that no one would want to buy Apple computers until the new model came out, thus sending Mac sales into the toilet. Obviously this didn't happen--in fact, the opposite was the result.

Add to that the fact that Apple has now and has traditionally held the top spot in customer satisfaction, often scoring way higher than any other maker.

And now we're getting Apple's third new-product-fest in six weeks tomorrow, where new high-end Power Mac and Powerbook models are expected to be announced (the last ones before the Mactels come, according to Apple's standard 9-month product cycle)--and there may be another "one more thing" surprise, as Apple has the biggest exhibitor's space at the PhotoPlus Expo in New York. No one is sure what Apple is planning to release, though the venue suggests it may be a digital camera of some type (Apple not-so-successfully marketed a QuickTake camera years back), or perhaps new photo-editing software (biting the hand of Adobe which so well feeds the Mac?).

So many people have written Apple's obituary so many times, so consistently over the years that it has become a bit of a running gag. Who'll be next?

The Video iPod, or vPod

So the predictions were right, and it was a video iPod that Apple came out with today (along with some new iMacs, which was less predicted). And there's a lot of hoopla about the video, in that you can download not only movie previews and music videos, but TV shows as well--in particular, Lost and Desperate Housewives. (It seems pretty clear that Jobs used his Pixar influence on Disney to open up their video vault to Apple for this.) The price: $2 an episode, or $35 per season. Not bad pricing, similar to a DVD set. And like with music on iTunes, you can download them to your iPod (if you have the new video iPod, of course) for portable viewing; you can share them between five computers; and you can burn them onto a CD for safekeeping.

Sounds good, doesn't it? However, most people who have checked the details aren't too impressed, and I'm one of them. First of all, how impressive is video on a 2.5-inch screen? Not very. If you don't mind a tiny picture in exchange for watching TV on the train, then OK. But I don't think many will really be wowed by that, at least not consistently. And with the iPods already bearing color screens, who didn't fully expect them to go video at some point? The bigger draw for videophiles would be the ability to watch video on one's computer, and perhaps hook it up to the TV for viewing.

The key advance here is the TV and movie downloads (the music videos are a step, but a small one). It would mean that video is going the way of music: instead of downloading TV shows and movies via BitTorrent or other piracy networks, people could download them via iTunes and pay a nominal fee for it. It would be a great alternative for people like me living overseas where some media takes forever to get here. The pricing scheme is just about right (on the high side of "right," however). Buying a DVD set would have advantages, like the special features (commentary, subtitles, special videos, outtakes, etc.), but the iTunes version would allow for immediate downloads of the episodes a day after they air--on-demand availability that will be key for a true video downloading paradigm.

There is one big caveat, however, and it will be a deal-breaker for most, including myself: video quality. If you go to Apple's web page for the new video feature, they studiously avoid mentioning anything about the video quality on a computer screen, aside from the highly misleading claim that the video are in "high-quality, H.264 QuickTime format." That's misleading, because people will think that "high quality" refers to the size of the video. It doesn't. HDTV quality is 720 pixels tall on a computer screen. 480 pixels tall is commensurate with non-HDTV size, and would look great on a normal TV screen. But that's not what you get with the new videos--instead, it will be 240 pixels tall, and 320 wide (see image at top of this entry as an example). That's 1/2 of regular video, and 1/3 of HDTV. You pay for the DVD, for example, the 1st season of Lost, and not only is the quality much higher, but you get a truckload of special features to boot, and the price is only $4 more.

Apple and Disney would have to make the quality a lot better and the special features present before a lot of people will buy into this. Right now it has more curiosity appeal than anything else, but that will soon pass. One can only assume that the small video size is mostly to guard against piracy. OK, fair enough. But you're probably going to drive more people to the pirated videos, which can be downloaded in 720-pixel HDTV format, and the DVD special features are often available for download as well. People who already pirate won't be tempted to go legit, and some people who were not aware of video downloads on demand actually might be attracted to the idea but will want more quality and could be led to download the content from BitTorrent instead.

That's why the iTunes music sales model has worked so well: the quality is as high as or higher than the pirated stuff, and it's easier to get. If the iTunes Music Store provided music with low-quality audio, no one would buy it. If Apple and Disney really want to fight video piracy, they have to offer something at least as good or even better than BitTorrent. Not worse.

Apple Gaining Ground?

There's a new article from a publication called The Streets which claims that Apple's retail market share shot up about 50% in the past year, from 4.3% to 6.6%. If true, that's a significant amount. however, there are a few caveats. First, the article, linked to by many sites, has either been edited or changed--the quoted statistic no longer appears. Whether simply an error by the publication, an address mix-up, or a knowing decision to edit the article and leave out the information is not clear. I can't find the claim made elsewhere (without quoting that changed article), so it's up in the air. Other qualifications include the fact that this figure only quotes retail and not online sales, which would lower the number a bit, but would still represent a significant difference.

Nonetheless, there are factors that suggest that Apple's market share is actually higher than most report. For example, Apple computers tend to last longer. If one company makes tennis shoes that are popular but wear out in a month and must be replaced, and another company makes higher-quality shoes that last for years, the former company would see more sales--but it does not mean that so many more people actually use the shoes. It just means they sell more. This is suspected with PCs and Macs, where Apple has maybe 5% of all computer sales, but more than 5% of computer users own an Apple.

Certainly Apple is still faring well with people who buy them. Customer satisfaction for Macs not only exceeds all other makers, but it exceeds all other makers by a wide margin--in both laptop and desktop models.

The current increase is seen as an iPod "halo" effect--people who buy iPods but use Windows see the high quality of the product and want to try the computers out as well. But starting next year, Apple will have a new inroad which will probably propel its sales even faster than they are increasing now. That will be the switch to Intel chips, making it possible to run not only Mac OS X, but Windows OS as well--both on a Mac, both at native speed. You can bet that there will be the ability to switch OS's on the fly, by typing one key or another. And with that, a great many people will be perfectly willing to shell out a few hundred more bucks for a machine that has both in one. People can continue to use their old software on Windows, while at the same time get new software for the Mac OS, using both operating systems toward their strengths. It will suddenly become a lot cheaper to "switch" from PC to Mac.

Music Labels Cry Crocodile Tears

Now that the initial contract between Apple and the music labels for iTunes Music Store sales is expiring, and the experiment has been so successful, the music labels want to do what have have been doing for a long time: screw over their customers like they screw over their artists. The labels want to allow for pricing tiers, charging variably per song and album. Already they are making more from iTMS sales than they make from brick-and-mortar sales, given there is no need for CD production, casing, packaging or physical distribution, and Apple likely takes a lower cut of the price than music stores do.

Yes, Steve Jobs is making a lot of money off of the iPods, no mistake about it. And yes, keeping the price of music to a dollar a song and ten for an album is helping him sell more iPods so people can use the iTunes Music store with it. So he has a bias to keep song prices low, while he charges a premium for the iPod itself.

This is the argument made by Warner Music Group CEO Edgar Bronfman Jr., who says that some music is more valuable than other music, and that mandating one price for all is "not fair to our artists, and I dare say not appropriate to consumers."

While he's right about Jobs, it has zero bearing on the pricing structure argument at large. So what if Jobs is making big bucks selling iPods? The music labels make far more selling music, even at current prices. And he is completely full of it when it comes to artists and consumers. What he wants to do is keep 99 cents as the rock bottom and charge more for hot songs. How is this "appropriate" for consumers, at least from the consumers' point of view? As for artists, the labels give them next to nothing unless they are really big-time and able to negotiate--but on the whole, they rip them off royally, and there is no chance that the labels will give any but the most powerful artists a pay boost from higher iTMS pricing.

This is nothing but a naked grab for profits by the music labels, with no benefit for the artists and certainly no benefit for the consumer--quite the opposite.

Mac-Friendly Bluetooth?

I've been waiting a very long time for some kind of cell phone to come out in Japan which both has Bluetooth and can communicate with Mac software. It seems like that phone is here--the Sony Ericsson Vodaphone 802SE. According to Apple's Japanese iSync page, the 802SE can communicate via Bluetooth with the Mac's Address Book and Calendar (which I take to mean iCal, but I'll have to check that). How easily it syncs or what else can be done between the Mac and cell phone is also a possible issue. At least this guy got it to work (and apparently it's been out for 2 months now, and has worked natively with Macs since Tiger was released).

Something I've been waiting to use is an app like Sailing Clicker, which turns your Sony-Ericsson or Nokia Bluetooth cell phone into a remote control device for your Mac. Apparently, the models available in Japan aren't on this app's supported list, but might be with the next version--or perhaps it is supported, as the Sony-Ericsson V800, which some people are saying is the same phone.

Hmmm. Sounds danged iffy to me. I'll have to look into this more, call up the company or something. Anyone out there know anything about this?

There's also one other problem: price. Is it all worth it? Right now, I have a PHS phone (the main cell system in Japan is called "keitai," PHS is a lesser-used system), and I pay 2000 yen a month for the account, and 10 yen a minute for calls. To change to the Vodaphone with Bluetooth, not only would I have to pay maybe 10,000 yen for the phone itself, I'd also have to pay 3000 yen a month for an account and on top of that, 60 yen per minute for calls. Is it worth that price just to have my cell phone's calendar updated via iCal, and maybe use my phone as a remote control?

In the end... probably not.

One other new Bluetooth product for the Mac: BTMouse by MacAlly. For $40 to $50, it's a cheap mouse for Bluetooth, but I like the design very much--also that it's full-size (I can't get used to the mini-mice).

Problem is, it seems to be in perpetual "on its way" mode. Mail order houses have it listed as being a wait of 1 to 3 days in some places, and 10-14 days in others. MacAlly's own web site still has the words "coming soon" on the product's page. I finally got tired of waiting, and sent an email to MacAlly; they replied, saying the mouse would be ready by mid-September. How can those sales houses, who have listed this as a 3-day wait since May, get away with claiming a 3-day wait when the manufacturer is publicly saying it'll be months before the thing comes out??

But as soon as it does comes out, I am getting one. Because I won't have to pay 60 yen per minute to use it.

Windows Vista Virus

Windows Vista, hyped for its "security," is 18 months away and already it has more viruses than Mac OS X. An Austrian virus writer has published a how-to work to show others how to make viruses, and included five viruses, which is five more than the Mac has right now. It's still in its conceptual stage, really proof-of-concept stuff, and Vista will undergo changes. But to have viruses designed to attack a "secure" system a year and a half before its even released is not so reassuring a sign of the system's "security."

iTunes Music Store Japan

It's about time.

Yesterday, Apple Japan rolled out the long-awaited iTunes Music Store for Japanese customers. Clearly in a compromise with record labels who don't want there to be too much of a disparity between physical and online sales, the Japan iTMS will have two-tier pricing, with some songs on sale for ¥150 and others for ¥200 ($1.35 and $1.80, respectively). Albums, meanwhile, are priced at ¥1500 to ¥2000 (obviously, $13.50 and $18).

While this may sound expensive, keep in mind that new CDs often cost ¥3000 to ¥3300 here (up to $30), so the music store still represents a significant price cut, not to mention the fact that Japanese music shoppers can buy music by the song now for lower prices than before.

The Japanese music labels, meanwhile, have been even more restrictive in some ways about protecting their music from ripping, sharing and pirating; some CDs here are spiked so that they'll munch up your optical drive if you put them into your computer (I know it's out there, but don't know how common it is). They have always had an even higher markup on music here than their counterparts in the U.S., and they are loathe to give that up completely. But that is also their downfall: in Japan, CD rental stores are legal, so a great many people just rent their music CDs from the stores for a few hundred yen, and then copy them at home. They even sell CD-Rs at the rental shops.

The selection at the JiTMS is still a little sparse, and is lacking in many areas (no movie soundtrack area yet, for instance). Many English-language artists are not represented (one example: Billy Joel is not there at all, despite having most if not all his work on the U.S. iTMS).

I just created an account for the new store, and had a bit of trouble: when I tried to go through the steps to create an account, I got "504" errors at each step, telling me to try again later. However, trying again just a few seconds later would do the trick. If you run into that error, just keep clicking. And by the way, iTunes detects if you're using an English, and everything is kept that way even though you're in the Japanese areas. They sometimes change the musicians' names or song titles if they're in Japanese, but not always (it's a mixed bag); however, all the dialogs and such are kept in the language you're using--the account sign-in was like that.

Podcasts seem to be universal, by the way--I'm still listed, even in the Japanese store.

Obviously, this is a work in progress; in some ways, it is amazing that Apple was able to get this far, considering how strongly Sony has been trying to lock Apple out of the portable player market. So we'll just have to see how things come along--but this is, of course, a good first step.

On a side note, Apple is opening the new Shibuya Apple Store tomorrow, August 6th.

Vista vs. Tiger Comparison

There's a new article out in E-Week online, titled "Apple's Tiger vs. Windows Vista: Who Comes Out Ahead?" comparing Tiger and Vista. This is quite typical of Windows-centric writers comparing Mac and Windows: though they get some things right, they all too often are mistaken about what Macs can do, and give unreasonable props to Windows for things that don't deserve it.

The article starts out on a legitimate track, pointing out all the things Vista will do which imitate Tiger, especially with the note of search design & features and look-and-feel, though he also notes some rather irrelevant items, like the similarity between the names "Aero" and "Aqua," and the names for the "Network" and "Computer" areas. It does not talk about other more significant similarities, such as Internet Explorer suddenly become an RSS-savvy tabbed browser with startling resemblances to Safari.

But then the author begins to point out the differences, he starts getting stuff wrong. He starts with:

The more-advanced Aero Glass option uses translucent window title bars, a handy feature of Mac OS X that Apple dropped with Panther, but is still used in the Dock.

I'm not even sure what he's talking about here. Title bars in the dock? They don't even exist there--no windows in the dock. And if he's trying to say that transparencies don't exist in Tiger, he's gone batty. And how are translucent title bars such a big deal? What's the advantage with that?

Vista does, however, have some nice touches that Tiger doesn't. Vista places previews of documents right on file icons. These are more sophisticated than the thumbnails that Photoshop creates, as they update as the file is changed. Tiger can display previews of graphic files, but not text-based files. ... Vista's folders display a representation of the type of files inside. Dialog boxes for saving files and other tasks use these thumbnails.

Actually, Tiger can do previews of text files as well if you use the column view in Finder windows. But I will concede that icon previews are better in Windows--though this is not really a Vista improvement, as XP can do the same things the author is talking about. But then we get back to the question, so what? Is this really a big deal for anyone? It'd be nice if Macs had this also, but I use both systems and never really feel the need. I mean, they're icons--they can't hold very much information about a document. Metasearch is more important here, and Tiger has that, while Vista had to abandon it already.

But I really get annoyed when the Mac is criticized for essentially not being Windows. One example is when the writer praises Microsoft: "Windows Vista will be superior to Tiger in terms of networking, mostly because Windows is a better client for Microsoft servers." In other words, Microsoft is better because it can communicate with itself better than Macs can communicate with it! How's that for Windows-centric? And it's not even always true: many times in the past I have had an easier time connecting a Mac to a Windows network than I have had connecting a Windows machine to a Windows network. There are certainly fewer steps involved with the Mac, to be certain.

The writer also says a great deal about archiving and searching, virtual folders and stacking--but fails to mention the vital fact that much of this depends on the WinFS file management system, which has been delayed and will not be available until 2008. Which means that Vista users will have a relatively hollow shell of these features, most of which are already available in Tiger--and yet the author here uses them as examples of how Vista will outshine Tiger. Really? When? Three to four years after the fact? He even mentions the use of "stacks" in file management--an idea Apple has been developing since 2000.

What's even more outrageous is when the writer concludes, saying that the next version of the Mac OS, Leopard, "will need to be a compelling alternative to Vista." In other words, Apple better catch up with Microsoft--pretty arrogant, considering that not only has Tiger achieved a year and a half early what Vista promises later, but that much of what Tiger can do now won't be available on Vista for another two and a half years, well after Leopard has been released.

And that brings me to the final and somewhat overwhelming flaw in this article: although it does mention Leopard near the end, it is overall a comparison between Tiger and Vista--an already-released Mac OS and a future version of Windows that won't be released before Tiger itself is obsolete! Think of comparing Mac OS X Jaguar with Windows Me, or even Windows 98; a fair comparison? Please.

Considering the fact that the Mac has always been way ahead of Windows, this kind of reverse-logic comparison smacks of revisionism before the fact. You have to admit, if you have to go so far as to compare a 2008 version of Windows (pretending it'll be complete in late 2006) with a mid-2005 version of Mac OS in order to make Microsoft seem even marginally comparable--well, that speaks volumes as to Who Comes Out Ahead.

Windows Tiger Vista

This article gives you a sneak peek at features in the new Windows Longhorn/Vista to be released in a year and a half. Essentially, most of the features described are directly ripped off from Mac OS X, from the icons to graphic transparencies to the tabbed/RSS browser to the virtual folders--right up to the exact location of the contextual search boxes in the upper-right corner of each new window.

Japan iTunes Music Store: August 4?

Apparently, some kind of "Apple Music Event" has been scheduled for 10 am on Thursday, August 4 at the Tokyo International Forum. Reporters have been invited to the event by Apple, so unless this is something completely unexpected, it's probably going to be the long-rumored opening of the Japan iTunes Music Store.

Still unknown will be the pricing (rumored to be ¥150, undercutting all other music download services in Japan) and the selection--Sony's rather large collection of music may likely not be available because Sony is trying like crazy to undercut Apple and its success with the iPod.

iTunes Music Store Japan: Next Month?

Well, that's what they're saying now. And more people are saying it'll open in August sometime. Even Forbes said it as if it were definitive. Hmmm. I'll believe it when I see it, but here's to being hopeful.

Audacity

A few weeks ago, I went on a bit about how to make a podcast, and I recommended a few audio recording and editing programs. I'm back to say that there's one I missed which outdoes all the others. It is a freeware app called Audacity, and it's a great program--so much so, you wonder why it's freeware. Maybe Peak LE does stuff that pros use which I don't know about, but as far as lay-people using apps to record and edit, this program has Peak beat hands-down.

It works much the way SoundEdit did, perhaps even better, and is a worthy successor. Audacity can open WAV, MP3, OGG, AIF and Sun AU audio files (MIDI import is also possible). THe application can save audio projects as proprietary Audacity files, and can export at WAV or OGG; you can also export as MP3 with the use of a LAME library file. You can also use Audacity to record via a microphone.

Once open, you can view and edit audio files in a variety of ways. In the example below, the left audio track is shown as a waveform while the right track is shown as a spectrogram:

You can split stereo audio tracks and edit them separately, adding or subtracting tracks as you go. You can change the view for or switch channels for each track:

A small control panel (shown at left) allows you to change the cursor mode between selection, edit volume (envelope), edit samples, magnify, move and multi-tools modes. The envelope mode is pretty neat, allowing non-destructive volume changes on the fly which you can edit back and forth without resorting to a dialog box, making permanent changes to the volume.

Another toolbar (shown at right) allows you to cut, copy, paste; crop in and crop out; undo and redo; zoom in and zoom out; and most useful, the last two controls allow you to quickly expand either the selection or the entire audio track to fit the window.

The tracks themselves are easily and intuitively expandable, allowing you to resize the display to whatever is most convenient for you.

The audio-out and audio-in volume are even presented just right (for my tastes at least). Almost everything feels like it was designed in just the right way. Complex enough to please high-end users, but simple and intuitive enough for a lay person like myself.

Furthermore, Audacity has a range of special effects very similar to SoundEdit, including fades, pitch/speed/tempo changes, amplification, bass boost, normalization, equalization, reverse/inverse, etc. etc. It can also generate tones and silence, sometimes useful and usually missing from other apps.

It's also available cross-platform, Mac (OS 9 and X), Windows, and Linux/Unix.

If you're looking for a good audio program and don't want to pay for a professional package, this is your baby.

New iTunes Cell Phone

Apparently the cat is--or might be--out of the bag: three days before an official announcement is expected, Engadget has posted photos and an iTunes screen shot of the new phone. It uses a TransFlash card for memory, the biggest size for that format being 256 MB. The phone appears to have some video function as well. However, the nature of the video function, or even if the phone includes a camera, is unclear. There is also talk about whether this is the real deal, or if it's an older proof-of-concept version of an existing phone model, and not the final product. The same site showed this image of what was then also rumored to be the new iTunes phone. So nothing is certain--except that there will be an iTunes phone, and we'll likely know its real final form by the end of this week.

Typinator

I just bought a new piece of Mac shareware and thought you might be interested in it. The software is called "Typinator." What it does is essentially the same as what Microsoft's AutoCorrect function does--it looks for you to type specific text strings, and when you do, it replaces them with other text strings that you have listed in the app. For example, if I want to type "The Blog from Another Dimension," I could abbreviate it in Typinator as "bgd"; then, whenever I type "bgd," the entire phrase is automatically replaced.

This function is also similar to the long-time Mac app called "TypeIt4Me" (around for close a decade), but from reports it works a lot better. TypeIt4Me works in the input menu, meaning you can only use it with the standard keyboard layout, and not, for example, Dvorak or any language other than QWERTY English. Typinator works differently, so you can use it with any keyboard layout; I've tried it by assigning English letters to activate Typinator to place Japanese characters, and it works. Typinator also allows for you to input images by typing specific strings. Typinator can also deliver date and time stamps, pre-formatted the way you prefer them. Finally, Typinator is cheaper, $19 shareware compared to TypeIt4Me's $27.

In my case, I plan to use it as an AutoCorrect feature, system-wide. I want to switch over to using Pages more, and rely on MS Word less. However, Pages lacks an AutoCorrect feature; Typinator now fills that need, and not just in Pages--it does it everywhere. If I visit a blog and want to leave a comment, people usually require an email address, and I might want to type my own blog's URL--but that can sometimes be a hassle. Yes, I know, I'm lazy as hell. But it's nice to be able to type just a few easy keys in each text box and have a full email address and URL in a second or so.

Another good feature is that Typinator allows multi-line fill-ins. MS Word 2004 for the Mac allows this also, but not on Windows. For example, you can enter your entire multiple-line home address into Typinator, and get it back in a split second. Another good use would be in scripting web pages; if I want to make a quickie web page, it's a hassle to type the basic HTML, HEAD, TITLE and BODY commands; takes a few minutes. But I can type them once, copy and paste the whole lot into Typinator, and from that point on I can insert the whole structure with only a few keystrokes. I can create similar fill-ins for TABLE or FORM tags, or any tag and attributes I please--which could save a lot of time writing basic HTML.

Typinator can also pay attention to your capitalization, so that if you have the string "typinator" with the trigger string "tpn," then typing "Tpn" will similarly capitalize the "Typinator" expansion.

Typinator does have a few down spots. For one, whenever it's activated, the automatically-replaced expansion text gets placed into the clipboard, kicking out whatever was in there previously; this has caught me up a few times, but I can live with it. Typinator is also a version-1.0, having just come out of Beta, so it's not as feature-rich as it could be. Future versions may include a workaround for the clipboard problem, and other new features, whatever they may be.

I also had some concerns about security. What Typinator does seemed to me to be similar to what a keylogging program might do: watch what you type. I emailed their support department, and got a detailed reply back explaining why that was not a problem. Typinator uses an Apple feature introduced in Panther called the "event monitor" which allows them to watch what you type without logging anything except very temporarily; furthermore, password fields in Mac OS X are protected from prying eyes (Typinator can't see what you type in a password field). It uses a completely different kind of technology to do its job. It would be easier for a hacker to simply create their own keylogging program than to somehow use Typinator for that purpose, so the security seems tight. Good enough for me.

TidBits reviewed Typinator, and you can find some user reviews on its download page at Version Tracker (assuming the reviews are genuine and not sales-related), or you can go to the product page at Ergonis. You can use Typinator as a trial, but it will only remember five expansion strings and no more, until you pay for the license.

As a side note, this app, along with the Dictionary now integrated into Tiger, make up the key elements I felt were lacking in Pages, which is now my first-string word processing application.

Yet Another Mac-Windows Comparison

One contrast between the two operating systems was one that surprised me at first. At work, there were some Windows machines in the main teacher area (it was a teacher office at a building I usually didn't work at). I wanted to install a specific application on one of the machines to do a task requested of me by the office staff. But when one of the teachers based in that office found out I was installing an app on one of their machines, he nearly exploded, and told me never to install apps on the machines without asking first. At the time, I didn't understand why he was so upset; after all, you can just uninstall later, right? But he insisted that one stray app could screw up other stuff--and he was right. I was just too used to the Mac way of doing things.

Recently I was trying to cut down on some of the bloat on my Windows box, so I went to the Install/Uninstall control panel, looked through the list, found several apps that I never used any more, and uninstalled them. The uninstall program obligingly did away with them, occasionally asking me if I wanted to delete shared resources; each time I said "no," not wanting to screw up anything else on the machine. But of course, it did. Though none of the apps I deleted had anything to do with browsing or even the Internet, my copy of Mozilla promptly developed an incredibly annoying bug: every time I opened up a web page, an error message appeared, telling me that a .dll file could not be accessed. Despite this, the pages I went to all loaded fully, so as far as I could tell, the missing file probably wouldn't affect my browsing. But the error messages persisted, and if I tried to close them, they would continue popping up immediately after I closed the last one, and would continue to do so as long as any page was loading.

As the error message suggested re-installing Mozilla, that's what I did. I uninstalled, and then re-installed the app. No luck--the error dialog boxes kept on coming. As far as I can tell, I'll have to wipe the hard drive clean and re-install everything before I can use Mozilla again. Fortunately, Firefox still works, so I can use that in the meantime. But what a pain.

What's worse, the Windows uninstall app doesn't always do the job. Sometimes it just doesn't work when you try it. Other times it will say it worked, but when you go to the Program Files folder, you'll still see a folder for the app with some files remaining. And, as I described above, sometimes it will remove resources and files used by or affecting other applications, even when you specify not to disturb shared resources. A damned ugly system, inconvenient and annoying.

On the Mac, it's pretty simple: to uninstall a program, just drag the app or its enclosing folder into the trash, and empty the trash. Bam, you're done. But doesn't that leave files behind? Yes, but they're usually so small that they don't take up much disk space, and they don't interfere with other apps. Furthermore, if you ever decide to reinstall the app you removed, all your preferences and registration info are still in place. And if you really want to get rid of the whole thing, just go to the Library folders and remove any specific files or folders in the Preference or Application Support folders; no big deal. And you never have to worry about one app's removal screwing up something else.

It's Here!

Got the new PowerBook. And as advertised, it's very, very nice. Transferred all my data and settings from the old TiBook, it was very seamless. So far, it's working brilliantly. It plays the Hi-res Apple Movie trailers quite well, ones which would not play well at all on my old 'Book. And though the unit gets hot, it doesn't get nearly as hot as my older computer would get. And though it's supposed to be .2 pounds heavier, somehow it feels lighter, even when holding both computers at the same time, one in each hand. I haven't had the chance to take it for a real spin yet, and won't see its full effect until the 1GB RAM upgrade gets here next week.

One problem: a dead pixel. Yargh. At least, it's partly dead. As far as I can tell, only the green element to the pixel is dead. But in most circumstances, it makes the pixel look dead, next to the other pixels around it. Anything that's not pure red, blue or purple, anything that's lighter than that, and it shows up. And there seems to be another pixel stuck on blue as well. The good news, somewhat: both are on the right side of the screen, less than an inch from the edge, so they won't be so noticeable. But you always really hope for the screen to be perfect. And Apple's policy is to accept anywhere up to five or perhaps seven dead or stuck pixels on a screen. Won't stop me from taking it to the Genius Bar at the Apple Store in Ginza and seeing what they say and do about it. I doubt I'll get anywhere, but best to try all options.

Confirmation

I received an email from Apple telling me that the PowerBook G4 I ordered last week will be arriving late this week, earlier than they first predicted. They told me it would get here on the 22nd, but now the correspondence says it'll get here no later than this Friday, the 17th.

But that's not the confirmation I'm referring to in the title of this entry. Rather, it's a review of the exact same PowerBook model on a website called "Notebook Review." The article is written by Gabe Lipson, a long-time Windows user who intended to buy another PC, but heard of issues with the model he wanted and quickly was sold on the PowerBook when he visited an Apple Store.

Many parts of the review are comforting especially in light of the possibility of Mactel Powerbooks as early as a year from now. Lipson points out that using a very simple benchmark (calculating pi to 2 million digits), the PowerBook outperforms a range of Pentium-M Wintel laptops running from 1.6 to 1.9 GHz; so despite the lack of a G5, the PowerBook G4 is still fast enough to rank up there in the laptop market. I know that more complex benchmarks will rank things differently, but still we're talking about an equivalent class of computers.

Lipson also compared the PowerBook screen favorably compared to the highly-touted BrightView reflective screen. I've seen these on PCs and they look very nice, but as Lipson points out, the reflective part seems like it could be an annoyance. The PowerBook's screen, he reports, does just as good a job without that down point.

Otherwise, Lipson praises though does not gush about the PowerBook: the size of the computer, the keyboard and the screen is just about right, not too big or small; the speakers do well, the processor performs well, the ports, WiFi and battery all perform as well as can be expected. Lipson likes the backlit keyboard, and admires OS X 10.4.

All of this not bad at all for a notebook computer which has received no significant processor upgrades for the past three years!

Lipson also mirrors my worries and complaints: the possibility of dead pixels (crossing my fingers big-time) and the fact that you never know when a huge upgrade may or may not be just around the corner.

This is what I've become used to hearing from long-time Wintel users who make the switch: pleasantly surprised. It also confirms many of the reasons why I like the Mac.

One more point, while I'm here: there has been a lot of talk in the past week about how Mac u