The Mac Sucks!

Microsoft has upped the ante for players in the digital music distribution market.  Zune Pass subscribers have always been allowed to download as much music as they want and play it on their PC/Zune as long as their subscription is current, but Microsoft and the record labels have negotiated a "sweetener" for Zune.  In addition to the "unlimited" subscription content, you'll be allowed to keep 10 songs each month (i.e., if your subscription lapses, they remain playable).

Ars Technica reports that, "As a result, the value of the $15 [monthly] Zune Pass has gotten a whole lot better. Assuming that you will want to keep 10 songs every month and a typical download track is worth $1, then you're only paying $5 to have unlimited access to the Zune Marketplace. This is certainly a step up from most other subscription models out there right now."  I'd have to agree.  Most other subscription models don't offer free songs.

This places the Zune Marketplace well above iTunes on my personal "value meter".  I can usually find at least one album each month that I'd like to own.  With iTunes, I'd be spending $10-15 a month to get that album.  During said month, I could listen to that album and any other album I'd previously purchased.  That's all.  With the Zune Marketplace, my $15 would not only get me that album, but also "unlimited play" access to pretty much everything else that's available through the Zune Marketplace.  My Zune could always be full of music, some of which I own, much of which I'm more or less "renting", for approximately the price of a single CD at retail.  For someone like me, who likes to listen to lots of different artists and comedians, this is a fantastic deal.

On the other hand, if you can't find 10 tracks a month that you'd like to add to your collection, or at least listen to without adding to your collection, then iTunes would certainly come out cheaper since it doesn't cost anything until you buy a track or video.

I'm forced to agree with Ars Technica that these changes in the Zune Marketplace are unlikely to sway many, if any, customers to the Zune from iTunes and the iPod.  But as they also point out, "The key measure of these changes may not be in how many people switch from

Since this site IS about platform neutrality, it's appropriate that I share some bad (and good) experiences with Microsoft Windows Vista with you...

Tuesday evening, I fired up my Windows Vista PC to play some music for me while I worked with the Mac that's part of my "Adventures in Mac-Land" project.  (That made more sense to me than copying the music over to the Mac to play it, since the Mac's not mine.)  I noticed that Windows was complaining that it had updates for me to apply.  It has been a very long time since I rebooted that machine, so I decided to go ahead and apply the updates.  The system rebooted, I logged in, plugged in a USB flash drive to get a couple of files off it, and received yet-another prompt about updates that needed to be applied.  (Like I said, it had been a long time since I'd last rebooted the thing.)

I applied this last round of updates, updated the antivirus definitions, and rebooted.  Vista complained that it couldn't find one of the files it needed to boot properly, and stopped dead.  Thinking it might be just an aberration, I hit the reset switch.  No good.  I booted from the installation DVD and tried the repair function, which also didn't resolve the problem.  

I copied the files I cared about from the boot disk to another drive (I've got about 8 drives in the machine, so that was no big deal) and reformatted the boot disk.  I ran the Vista installer to get the 64-bit version of the OS loaded (where previously I'd installed the 32-bit version for compatibility with an older RAID card).  At the end of the installation, it rebooted and gave me the same error it had earlier.  I was not, as you could imagine, terribly amused.

At this point, I remembered something that hasn't dawned on me in a long time... The BIOS on my PC's motherboard has a built-in limitation that extends from a built-in feature.  The machine can be booted from a CD, an IDE boot disk, a SATA disk, a floppy, or a USB drive.  Which one it tries to boot from depends on what you've selected in the BIOS.  Unfortunately, the BIOS seems to have only a limited number of "spaces" to keep track of the "potentially bootable" disks.  When it finds more disks than it has room for, it appears to "bump" some of the disks out of the boot list in favor of the disks it finds later in the process.  

Thus, when I plugged in that USB drive to copy files off it earlier, I gave it "one too many" potentially-bootable devices to look at.  As a result, it bumped my actual boot disk off the list in favor of the recently-inserted USB drive.  That meant Vista was looking in the wrong place for its boot files, and subsequently not finding them.  When I removed the USB drive from the hub and rebooted, the machine came up normally (since the BIOS boot order list was now what it should be).  That little bit of "user error" meant that I had wiped and reinstalled Windows Vista without actually needing to do so.

Although I won't deny that it's a real pain in the backside to download and install the 64-bit drivers, reinstall my applications, reconfigure my preferences, etc., there's been a good side to all this.  It may be my imagination, but the 64-bit version of Vista feels a LOT snappier than the 32-bit version did on my hardware.  Applications are launching quickly, windows and menus snap open instantly, and it just feels faster.  Of course, some of that could be due to the reinstallation itself, which essentially cleans up the Registry, reorganizes the files on the disk, etc.  So I'm almost glad I forgot to remove that USB drive when I rebooted.   (While I do NOT blame this problem on Windows Vista, as it's a hardware/firmware limitation, it does suck that the BIOS manufacturer didn't foresee the potential problem and build in safeguards.)

If nothing else, it's at least a "learning experience" (said with some sarcasm).

According to an article by Ina Fried on Download.com, Microsoft has announced that it won't be finished with Internet Explorer 8 until 2009.  They plan to offer one more public test version of IE 8 before releasing the final version.  That public test version is expected to be released in the first quarter of 2009, meaning that Microsoft will miss its goal of finishing IE 8 in 2008.

It's good to see that Microsoft is taking its time getting IE 8 to market, which implies that they're taking the extra time to squash bugs and collect user feedback.  (In fact, Fried makes a note of this at the end of the article, saying that Microsoft's "Hachamovitch also called on technical users to download the current beta 2 version and let Microsoft know how that goes.")  I suppose that's the advantage of working on a product that doesn't (at least directly) generate revenue for Microsoft...

CNet once again seems to be stirring the fires of Apple controversy with its revelation that the new Google Mobile application for the iPhone breaks App Store rules, yet hasn't been banned (unlike many other applications from much smaller developers).  From the outside, it certainly appears that there aren't well-defined, published, and rigidly followed guidelines for what iPhone applications can and can't do.

As Tom Krazit reports on CNet, "If Google wasn't Google, there's a fair chance that its new mobile application for the iPhone wouldn't be allowed in the App Store. That's because Google Mobile is tapping into iPhone technology that is supposed to be off-limits to third-party developers, according to research done by Daring Fireball's John Gruber and Ars Technica's Erica Sadun."  Later in the article, he reports that "further research done by Sadun shows that Google is actually going beyond its use of unpublished APIs in the Google Mobile application to call on so-called 'private' frameworks that are supposedly off-limits to anyone but Apple, an offense that can result in banishment from the App Store."

Krazit concludes that the App Store approval process doesn't make sense, that applications which don't violate any published guidelines are denied, while others that violate the rules "sail through".  As a result, "if you play by the rules of the developer program, your application won't be able to compete against those created by developers who violate the rules and get away with it because either Apple missed the violation or because they are politically connected industry titans."  This is described by John Gruber as a "rigged" system, if developers are forced to play by the rules but Google is allowed to use private APIs just because they're Google.

Krazit's article also makes a number of other points about Apple and the App Store that are worth reading and thinking about.  For me, the most intriguing thought expressed in the article was this:  "So it's not hard to believe that Apple is simply overwhelmed and does not have the manpower to comb through each application to make sure that it is toeing the line. However, that was the main selling point for Apple's strategy to completely control iPhone application distribution; that it would be able to prevent poorly written or insecure applications from poisoning the iPhone by vetting every single application."

According to a post on CNet, iTunes customers are angry with Apple over copy protection measures used in iTunes content.  "Some Mac users are teed off that they are getting error messages saying the iTunes movie they rented or bought can't be played on their display because it is not HDCP (High Digital Content Protection) authorized. And some people are complaining they are only able to play certain standard definition iTunes content on their laptop or via an HDMI connection," says CNet's Elinor Mills.

While I'm sure Apple didn't unilaterally decide to include and activate HDCP technology in OS X (i.e., I'm sure the content providers asked for it), it seems that the implementation has surprised many Mac users.  Regardless, it's pushing some to beg Apple CEO Steve Jobs to "set the music free".  CNet's Greg Sandoval says DRM (Digital Rights Management) doesn't fit in with the Apple image and is starting to make iTunes "look stodgier than that 'PC guy' you're always mocking in your commercials."

Apple seems to be very committed to its DRM.  They recently threatened the "iPodHash" project that they were breaking the DMCA laws by continuing to try to reverse-engineer the "hash" used to protect the iPod's internal music database file.  They weren't trying to remove DRM from iPod content, just gain access to the database used in the device so that they could build an open source synchronization application to talk to the devices.

It will be interesting to see if Apple continues to pursue the path of DRM or if they renegotiate their deals with the major music industry publishers.  As Sandoval points out, the same labels whose iTunes content is protected with DRM are selling unprotected MP3 content on Amazon.com, the Zune Marketplace, and more.

In high school, I read a Herman Melville story called "Bartleby, the Scrivener: A Story of Wall-street" about a fellow employed in the pre-copy-machine days to make exact copies of legal documents for attorneys (a "scrivener").  The story stands out in my memory because I took away from it something very different than my teacher intended.  When she read the story, my teacher came away from it feeling sorry for poor Bartleby, whose health had deteriorated such that he could no longer work, and whose employment was terminated by the story's end.  When I read it, I saw a freeloader who got lazy and stopped doing his job, still expecting to be paid.  After all, when approached to do work, Bartleby didn't say, "I'm sorry, my eyes and hands hurt too much."  He said, "I prefer not to."  The teacher said that in all her years of teaching, I was the first person not to take pity on Bartleby, and to interpret the story the way I did.  I took a sort of perverse pride in that, and still do.  But I digress...

It's somehow fitting that I find myself years later looking at a software tool for writers called "Scrivener".  Produced by Literature & Latte, this program purports to help writers collect, organize, and use their creative ideas in a minimally-structured environment.  I'd first heard about Scrivener several months ago when a Mac-fanatic writer/friend told me that he found it to be one of the best writing tools he'd ever used.  I forget his exact words, but they were along the lines of "This software is designed almost exactly for the way I write."  High praise, to be sure.

Lately, I've been bitten by the creative bug.  The bug usually gnaws at my subconscious until I finally produce something creative that I'm satisfied with (as much as any writer or creative person is ever really "satisfied" with their work).  I have an inkling that the bug won't be satisfied this time until I've written a short story or novella of some kind.  I'd kind of forgotten about Scrivener until Connor Byrne of Apple Eclectic was kind enough to provide me with a link to the developer's web site.  Last night, I downloaded the software and installed it.   Over the last couple of evenings I've gone through the very informative tutorial.

I can see where Scrivener would be very useful.  It allows writers to collect "research" (which can consist of text, images, QuickTime movies, etc.) related to a writing project within the tool.  As the writer's project begins to take shape, the writer places notes in the "draft" area of the product.  Scrivener includes an outliner and a virtual "corkboard" to help the writer turn the rough notes into a storyboard and put some actual structure to the work in progress.  When it's all done, the writer can output the initial draft from Scrivener and import it into another application for layout, additional editing, etc.

For the last several years, I've had an idea for short story I want to write.  Perhaps this would be a good field test for Scrivener...

Last year, Dell released the Latitude XT, an enterprise laptop PC with multi-touch functionality similar to that used in the iPhone.  On Wednesday, HP unveiled the TouchSmart tx2, the first "consumer" laptop to feature multi-touch functionality.

As CNet reports, "How did HP accomplish this feat, when Microsoft won't add multitouch functionality until it releases Windows 7?  By partnering with an Israeli company called N-trig."  The tx2 reportedly looks like a standard convertible tablet PC, and is priced at $1,149 and up.  At the low end, the device features a 2.1 GHz AMD Turion X2 CPU, 3GB of RAM, a 250GB hard drive, ATI HD3200 graphics, and 32-bit Vista Home Premium.  

I'm inclined to agree with CNet's Matt Elliott when he says, "Personally, I've never understood the draw of a tablet outside, perhaps, a few specific occupations that require the use of specific software and where one lacks of a desk -- say, insurance agents in the field or medical professionals moving from one patient to the next. For me, nothing is a more efficient input device than a QWERTY keyboard, along with a mouse or touch pad." But hey, to each his (or her) own.

Still, I wish HP (and Dell) success with their multitouch devices, and am curious to see what response (if any) comes from Cupertino.

A company named "Spansion" recently filed a lawsuit against flash memory manufacturer Samsung, claiming that Samsung has violated their patents.  The lawsuit names not only Samsung but companies that use Samsung components, including Apple, Sony, and Lenovo.  They're putting pressure on Samsung to settle by reportedly petitioning the government to block the import of products that contain the allegedly infringing technology.  What kind of a business is Spansion?  I don't know much about them, but the San Francisco Business Times article linked above says, "The company bought Saifun Semiconductor earlier this year and added that company's patents to its own, hoping to set up a licensing business using its intellectual property."  That sounds like a kind way of saying this company is a "patent troller" which buys up other companies and their intellectual property if they think there's a chance they can win a lawsuit alleging patent infringement or a similar claim.  Could be a bad day for consumers if Spansion succeeds in blocking the importation of Samsung flash-based products.

According to Computerworld's Gregg Keizer, internal emails from Microsoft that were released as part of the "Vista Capable" lawsuit that's underway showed Microsoft "feared" a Mac versus Vista comparison back in 2005.  This claim is based on what was said in a Wall Street Journal column by Walter Mossberg.  In the column, Mossberg suggested that if you were thinking about what computer to buy for Vista, you should buy a Mac instead.  Mossberg's argument was that OS X Tiger (the then-available release) contained much of what Vista was reportedly going to have, and was more secure than Windows XP.  

Based on what is quoted in the Computerworld article, I think it's a little bit of a stretch to say that Microsoft "feared" comparisons between Tiger and Vista.  They were, however, understandably concerned that a columnist for a well-known and well-respected publication (the Wall Street Journal) was suggesting that a Mac was a better product than a Windows Vista PC (at a time when you couldn't BUY a Windows Vista PC to compare it to).  If a New York Times writer published a story blasting OS X, suggesting that Mac users should switch to Windows or Linux, I'd expect similar emails to fly around Cupertino as Apple executives questioned one another on how the writer reached that conclusion.  Would I look at those emails and say Apple "feared" Linux or Windows? No. I would if the context indicated they did, but I don't see that kind of indication in the Microsoft quotes presented.  (Perhaps elsewhere in the emails there IS an indication of fear, but Keizer didn't provide any quotes that imply fear to me.  All I see are executives attempting to sort out how to deal with negative, and from their perspective untrue, comments about their product.)

Much of the ensuing Microsoft conversation is about how they need to communicate the value of Vista to consumers so that articles like Mossberg's aren't given undue credence by readers.
For example, the emails indicate that Microsoft saw one of the values of Vista being that it can "run on a very wide-ranging set of systems from the minimally capable to the incredibly capable. Apple doesn't do that."  As I interpret the comment, they're right.  Apple has always positioned the Mac as a "premium" offering, perhaps to justify premium pricing.  They generally don't try to do low-end computers.  (Even the Mac Mini, Apple's lowest-end machine, isn't exactly "Wal-Mart PC" priced.)  Windows and Linux, by comparison, do support a wider range of hardware (not just brands and makes/models, but chronologically older hardware).  Whether that's a good or bad thing depends on your perspective.

Microsoft wouldn't enjoy the market dominance it does if it ignored alternatives to Windows, and didn't give thought to how to position itself against them.  I'm sure executives at Microsoft pay close attention to OS X, Linux, and even the "niche" OS players out there.  But being aware of your competition and positioning your product within the market aren't signs of "fear" any more than Apple's "Mac vs. PC" ads imply that Apple is scared of Windows.

CNet claims that Microsoft's Live OneCare anti-malware solution changed the Windows antivirus landscape, generally for the better, by putting the antivirus vendors on their toes and making them develop more comprehensive products at better prices.  Maybe they're right, I don't know.

More interesting than this is the news that Microsoft is planning to release a free antivirus, anti-malware product for Windows in 2009.  As CNet claims, this is likely to change the antivirus landscape yet again, since Microsoft's technology is being compared to the industry's best. 

I think this is the right move for Microsoft, though it probably screws over those who actually paid for OneCare in the past to some degree.  To be as effective as possible, anti-malware protection really should be coming from the operating system vendor.  The operating system vendor would seem to be in the best position to identify potential weak points and protect them, and to ensure that the operating system integrates well with the anti-malware code.

It will probably also have a further downward effect on pricing for commercial antivirus solutions, which is good for the consumer (though not so good for the vendors).  This, in turn, should help more people deploy effective antivirus software and result in a more-secure "Windows world" overall.

I'm an optimist, I know, but I agree with CNet that this should be a good thing in the end.

According to CNet, an Apple executive was quoted at a UNIX conference as saying that OS X Snow Leopard 10.6 would be released in the first quarter of 2009.  The author of the CNet article goes on to suggest that "first quarter" might actually mean the MacWorld conference on January 5, 2009.  After having to delay 10.5 for iPhone work, I doubt Apple will openly declare a precise release date for Snow Leopard yet, but it wouldn't surprise me if they at least announce a release date at MacWorld.  The real question is, if Apple delivers on its promise to include mostly "fixes" in Snow Leopard and no significant new features, will people bother to buy it?

Apple has scored a minor victory in its case against Mac clone maker Psystar.  When Apple sued Psystar, alleging a variety of legal issues, Psystar sued back on the grounds that Apple has a monopoly on systems that run Mac OS X.  The judge in the case reportedly said that the Apple control of the Mac market isn't a monopoly, and dismissed that charge in Psystar's suit.  While this is certainly an unfortunate turn of events for Psystar, it doesn't necessarily mean that Apple has won the entire case.  There is still ample room for Psystar to achieve some sort of victory that allows them to continue making and selling Mac clones.  

The Register has reported yet-another case of an unusual application ban by Apple's App Store for the iPhone.  Developer return7 has previously submitted (and had approved) to the App Store several versions of its CastCatcher Internet radio software.  When it recently submitted a relatively minor update to the software, Apple refused to include it in the App Store because it "used excessive amounts of bandwidth" on the carrier's network.  The previous version, which uses the same amount of bandwidth, is still there and can still be obtained.  

Further, there are several other apps in the store that use comparable amounts of bandwidth, yet none of them has been banned.   As the article indicates, "you can still buy all sorts of other internet radio apps from the iPhone App store, including Pandora, AOL Radio, Tuner, FStream, WunderRadio, and the list goes on."  This makes the banning of CastCatcher rather odd.

In putting itself in the position of censor, and relying on human beings to perform the censoring, Apple is setting itself up for repeated complaints of this type.  Hopefully, they're working behind the scenes to develop some documented common-sense guidelines on what iPhone applications can and cannot do.  That may mitigate some of this.

Australia's PC Authority magazine published an interesting interview with free software advocate Richard Stallman.  In it, Stallman talks about the difference between "free software" and "open source software", OpenOffice.org, Firefox, the Asus Eee PC, and some related topics.  It's an interesting read, if for no other reason than to see Stallman's thought processes in action.

He states that to be truly called "free" the software must meet four basic criteria:

1. The user is permitted to run the program as they wish.
2. The user may study the source code and change it, making the program do what they wish it to do.
3. The user may redistribute exact copies when they wish.
4. The user may distribute copies of their modified versions when they wish.

Any software that doesn't meet these criteria, Stallman says, isn't truly "free".  As you might guess, Stallman is against any software that doesn't meet these criteria, including open source software.

According to the interview, someone gave Stallman an Asus Eee PC as a gift, but he refused to use it because it required him to agree to a software license.  I found it amusing that his solution to the problem was: "I asked someone to install a free GNU/Linux distro so the machine could be used."  I'm amused not because Stallman stuck to his guns, which I respect, but that he had to ask someone else to install Linux on it.  What, he couldn't boot it up from a GNU/Linux CD (that doesn't have a EULA) himself?  Or does he simply refuse to touch anything that has proprietary software on it? Either way, odd.

I guess my own opinion on free, open source, and proprietary software is this... It would be nice if all software was free, or at least open source.  However, I also respect the right of the programmer to determine how best to benefit from the software they've created, just as I respect an author's right to distribute their written work, or a musician's right to distribute their music, or that of any other creative person.  If you believe that releasing your work as free software is the way to go, that's fine by me.  After all, you created it.  If you want to release it as open source and retain certain rights as the creator, I'm OK with that, too.  And as someone who's worked for software companies, I also respect the right to adopt a business model that allows you to control your work the way you want to.

Similarly, what I'd really like to see is that when a peripheral manufacturer decides that supporting the drivers for a given device is no longer worthwhile, that they release the source code for those drivers.  While I think it's perfectly reasonable for a manufacturer to stop releasing updated drivers for a device they haven't manufactured for several years, I also think it's reasonable for the customer to want to still be able to use it.  Releasing driver source code could start a whole cottage industry of maintaining drivers for old, but still viable, hardware.

This weekend, I decided to focus on Apple's "iLife" applications (iDVD, iMovie, iPhoto, and iWeb).  I know iTunes is included in there, too, but since I don't own an Apple iPod or iPhone I think a lot of the best functionality of iTunes is going to be lost on me, so I'm not going to spend time with it yet.


iDVD's purpose in life is to allow Mac users to produce DVDs from their digital video files.  At a high level, the Mac user selects a menu template for the DVD, picks out the video clips to be included on the disk, sets up the menus, and burns the disc.  This is approximately the same workflow that any PC DVD authoring software uses, so picking up iDVD wasn't difficult after using Windows software that does the same thing.

iDVD offers a number of different menu templates, all of which feature some kind of animation.  While some of the consumer-grade DVD authoring tools on Windows offer animated menus, they usually only offer a few in amongst a much larger array of non-animated templates.  iDVD menu templates include:

There are approximately 95 themes/templates in all.  Some are suited to a very specific purpose, such as a wedding video, vacation video, or holiday video, while others are more generic.  One thing they all share in common is an Apple logo in the lower-right corner of the template.  Personally, I find that as annoying as the little station-identification logos the networks put on their television programming.  I suspect Mac users don't, as it serves as a "badge of honor" (as in, "I did this on my Mac") and a subtle advertisement for Apple (as in "this is what a Mac can do").

Thinking about iDVD as a potential "switcher" from Windows might, I decided to see how well it handled digital video files I had on hand.  As it happens, I've got about 200GB of digital video lying around. This includes shows I recorded using my now-dead analog video capture board, movies I captured from my old VHS tapes, and newer digital video from a variety of sources.  Having a wealth of different video formats and sources available to me to play with, I wanted to find out how compatible iDVD would be with video files of various types.

As on Windows, once the appropriate codecs (compress/decompression programs) were installed on OS X, it was possible to work with all the video formats I previously used on Windows - with one exception (and that might have worked if I'd known which codec was used to create it). Finding and installing the appropriate codecs was approximately the same difficulty level as for Windows.  The Mac did nothing to warn the user that it didn't have a way to decode some of the AVI files, which is something I've seen Windows do before.

In terms of creating a DVD from compatible video files, iDVD is comparable to the tools I use on Windows.  The basic workflow is to select a desired template/appearance for the menus, select the video files to include on the disc, and start the encoding/burning process.  That same workflow is how iDVD operates.

The encoding process on OS X was approximately real-time. That is, a 30-minute video file was encoded for DVD by the 2.0 GHz Mac in approximately 30 minutes.  That, too, is comparable to Windows.

I should point out that the software I normally use on Windows includes an MPEG-2 codec, so the purchase of a codec is unnecessary on Windows, unlike OS X.  Since we're only talking about a $20 outlay, that's a minor nit to pick, but worth mentioning because it's an issue you have with the Mac that you don't with Windows.

In terms of the look of the menus, I would agree that they're at least as good as those I've gotten from Windows applications, if not better.  The amount of animation in many of iDVD's menu templates ("themes") is greater than in a couple of the Windows applications I've used.  

For ease of use, I found iDVD to be comparable (i.e., not especially easier or harder) to use than the Windows DVD authoring packages I've used.  I imagine that an inexperienced computer user would get a little nicer looking menus out of iDVD than a typical PC application, but otherwise there's no significant difference that I could see.


I actually had to read the help and manual for iMovie, as I didn't find it as intuitive as the Windows software I've been using for the last several years.  After reading it, it didn't take long to be able to open and edit movie files with iMovie.

There was one thing that really surprised me about iMovie.  Although I was able to import a variety of different video files into iDVD, only the MPEG-4 (.mp4) file I tested with would actually be usable as-is with iMovie.  In order to use any of the other video files I brought over from Windows, I would have had to convert them into a format iMovie liked.  According to the help system, it likes MPEG-4, MPEG-2, and DV formats.  That may be true, but it didn't want to open the MPEG-2 (.mpg) files I brought over from Windows.  If I was making a permanent switch from Windows to the Mac, I think the limited number of video formats imported by iMovie would be frustrating to me, since nearly all of my 200GB of existing video files would not be a format it is willing to open... and quality is nearly always lost in any format conversion with video.

Aside from that, iMovie offers about a dozen different transition types and title styles.  It also allows importing of iTunes and iPhoto content into iMovie, which could (for instance) allow you to create a movie from your still photos and set that movie to any tune in your music collection.  While my PC video editing software doesn't integrate with any photo management or music management software, it does provide the same functionality from my photo and music collections, so this is nothing that revolutionary.

That's about all I can say for iMovie.  It's accessible, does what it is intended to do, and offers a reasonable number of transitions and effects.  


My web sites use a content management system called Movable Type.  In order to change the appearance of the site, I need to change the "Style" and layout information in Movable Type's preferences.  To make any kind of radical change, I need to perform surgery on the HTML and CSS files Movable Type uses. For web editing needs, iWeb is therefore close to useless.  But I realize I'm not the typical person building their first web site.  For them, this would help build a decent-looking web site relatively easily.

Much like the Apple logo appearing in the menus on iDVD, Apple includes a "Made on a Mac" logo a the bottom of iWeb-created pages by default. Fortunately, this is something you can remove if you don't want your site to feature an unpaid advertisement for Apple.

Aside from that, it's an impressive web editing tool, provided (as I noted earlier) that you don't use a content management system that it would have to integrate with.  I was able to fiddle around with the sample pages and get some nice-looking results that I'm not sure I could do with any of the commercial Windows web editors.  (Then again, I've not used a higher-end editor on Windows other than the open source Kompozer and Nvu, which aren't really competitors to iWeb.)


I'm pretty much a novice when it comes to photo editing, so I'm a good test case for iPhoto (unlike the rest of iLife).  I know enough with The Gimp to be able to do some basic masking and how to combine images from multiple photos into one, but no one's going to look at my work and confuse it with a true professional's.

For basic photo manipulation, like correcting under or over-exposure, sorting out color problems, and bringing out hidden details, iPhoto is very nice.  I was able to get results I was reasonably happy with after only a little fiddling around.  It can't replace PhotoShop or The Gimp, because it doesn't seem to have the more-advanced functionality, but for basic photo cleanup and organization, it's a nice tool.  Would it convince me to ditch my Windows (or Linux) PC?  Not really.



On the one hand, I understand why Apple is proud of iLife.  It makes video editing, DVD authoring, digital photo cleanup, and web page creation relatively accessible to a typical computer user.  The templates included with each product allow for even the most amateurish content to be presented with a professional-looking style.  

On the other hand, as someone who's experienced with digital video, DVD authoring, and web site management, they're very basic tools.  Once you get beyond the desire to just place your existing content in the provided templates, the iLife applications are going to feel "limiting".  For instance, if you wanted to create your own Themes in iDVD, there doesn't appear to be a feature for that.  The same is true for iMovie in that you won't be creating your own transitions or title styles.  And of course in iWeb you have to start with an existing template, although there is a bit more freedom to muck about with the page layouts.

I mentioned earlier in this series of articles that one of the things I do on Windows is write ad-hoc Microsoft Visual Basic applications for different things.  I lamented the fact that there's no Visual Basic 6 for the Mac.  (Heck, VB6 for Windows is ancient at this point... need to update my skills...)  I looked at REALBasic and while I think it's an intriguing product, the version I'm most interested in (which would allow cross-platform programming for Mac, Linux, and Windows) is priced way out of my ballpark ($500).

While looking to see what other "Basic" options I might have on OS X, I ran across an interesting bit of open source software, the Mono application framework. This is an open source attempt to bring the .NET platform to the Mac, Linux, and even on Windows (alongside Microsoft's own .NET components).  I brought the development environment up earlier this evening and while it's somewhat familiar to an old VB6 programmer, it's also quite different.  I guess maybe it's time I started learning VB.NET...


My friend brought over the iLife '08 DVD so that I could install that, after removing it from one of his Macs it was licensed for.  I was surprised at how long it takes to install that software.  I think I was remembering some of the earlier versions that installed in a couple of minutes, so the fact that this one took more than 10 minutes seemed lengthy.  I guess it's fair to say Apple has added some things since I last looked at it.

I've had several Mac users talk about how cool iMovie and iDVD, so I am curious to have a look at them.  I've worked with several digital video packages on Windows, from the very basic stuff that shipped with video digitizer boards to some of the more expensive solutions out there.  It should be interesting to see how this compares.  Along the way, I've gotten used to a particular way of working with digital video software, so it will be interesting to see if that style adapts to the "i" applications.

I have no musical talent to speak of, so I'm probably not going to bother with GarageBand for the moment. I will give it a spin, however, just out of curiosity. 

Being something of a web geek, I'll have to take iWeb out for a drive as well, though I will admit that I'm beginning with a pre-conceived notion that it's probably not going to be advanced and flexible enough to suit me.


I'm starting to think one of the RAM chips installed in this test system is bad.  I know OS X is far from crash-proof, but I've seen a few behaviors that make me think I'm looking at faulty RAM.

Wednesday evening, Safari crashed while I had 2-3 tabs open.  I wasn't able to reproduce the crash, so it probably wasn't a bug in Safari.

Thursday, while attempting to install the Mono framework, I got an error indicating that the installer was corrupt. I ran it a second time and it worked fine.  The iLife installer also complained of that problem the first time I tried to use it.  Again, fine the second time. Memory errors tend to be hit-or-miss like that, I've found.

One of the screensavers locked up on me Tuesday night, now that I think about it.  I've never seen that happen on any of the earlier OS X releases, so again I'm thinking it's probably the RAM.

I'll have to see if I have some compatible RAM lying around that I can swap out.  I know OS X's not crash-proof but this is a lot more crashing than I'd expect in only a few days.

Wonder if this was my friend's secret motivation in loaning me the machine (to troubleshoot his crashing problems)?  Just kidding, Dave...

CNet's Greg Sandoval reports in "Hulu won't be clowned by iTunes" that while digital movie sales from sites like iTunes may deliver higher profit margins to Hollywood studios, ad-supported content like that on Hulu can draw from a much larger market and earn more money overall.

Having enjoyed some of the content on hulu.com and having browsed iTunes, I can't say that I see these as necessarily competing services.  They probably compete for the content, but not so much for the viewership.  A consumer going to iTunes is typically looking for something to download and install on their iPod.  A consumer visiting Hulu's site is generally planning to watch the content there and then, and isn't expecting to shell out any money.  Those are two different markets.  I would have to think, too, that Hulu is right to say that they represent a much wider audience (since their content is viewable on personal computers, which I suspect outnumber iPods).

ExtremeTech has taken an early look at the graphics in Microsoft Windows 7, which Microsoft is claiming will ship in 2009.  As ExtremeTech reports, "The changes to the graphics landscape you can expect in 7 are not sea changes, but these relatively minor upgrades should provide welcome features and may have a significant impact on consumers."

Windows 7 will apparently incorporate a new driver model, a new version of DirectX, and offer some graphics performance enhancements.  Games, it's said, will see a significant performance improvement.  Microsoft will also address annoying screen flashes, scaling problems, and accelerated 2D (as well as 3D) performance.  It will also ship with support for MPEG, DivX, Xvid, MPEG-4, AAC ("though obviously not Apple's protected stuff from iTunes"), WMV, and WMA.

ExtremeTech concludes their analysis by saying "For graphics enthusiasts and gamers in particular, Windows 7 sounds more and more like a must-have every time we hear something more about it.  We can only hope that, unlike with Vista, we're not hearing about features a year before release that get cut before the product actually ships."

While I am curious to see what Windows 7 looks like when it comes out, I sympathize with Microsoft for the beating Vista has taken in the marketplace.  I've been using Vista since about a week after its release.  I had trouble the first few months, but that turned out to be due to a defective motherboard and not defects in Vista.  Once I'd replace the board, Vista instantly became stable and reliable.  I haven't seen a single blue-screen, very few application compatibilities (typically with apps more than 6 years old), no driver headaches, and reasonable performance.  On the other hand, I'm not saying Vista is perfect.  It's not.  I like the UAC feature as a concept, but it's a nuisance in practice.  And I think the performance of Windows Explorer in Vista is disappointing at best.  Windows XP, in my opinion, would blow the doors off OS X Tiger when it came to copying large numbers of files.  But based on what I'm seeing at the moment, Leopard blows the doors off Vista when it comes to file copying and browsing.  Even on less-powerful hardware, Leopard seems to be copying files faster (though I've not done any actual timing to confirm that). I don't know what Microsoft "broke" in Vista that has slowed Explorer down so much, but I hope they fix it.

According to Fox News, three of the largest makers of LCD screens have pleaded guilty to price-fixing and will be forced to pay fines totaling $585 million.

The products affected by the price-fixing included Apple iPods, Motorola Razr phones, as well as laptops and monitors sold by Dell (and presumably lots of other companies).

The official quoted in the article said that "the termination of the conspiracies should lead to lower prices."  Perhaps that means iMacs and iPods will come down a little in price soon?

A Mac-hating friend of mine passed along a link to a Mac vs. PC comparison on the "topnewsblog".  The comparison, such as it is, shows an iMac reportedly priced at $3999 (must be an old price, as they aren't that expensive now unless you really deck one out) and a Dell PC at $1299 (also sounds a little high to me - maybe both include software?), then shows below it a picture of a game from each platform.  The Mac game is childish looking and claims to be running at only 8 frames per second, while the PC game looks almost like a movie scene at first glance.  I share the link not because I think it's a great, fair, or even accurate comparison, but as an example of the perception that many people have about the Mac and Apple.  This is the kind of image Apple will need to overcome if it is to substantially increase its share of the desktop market.

In the security world, there are two kinds of threats that IT departments protect against. One threat comes from outside the company, when a malicious email message, virus, trojan, worm, or hacker tries to breach the company's defenses and get at your systems and data. It's clear from Apple's actions that it understands this kind of threat and takes it seriously, as it should.

Another, in some ways more dangerous, threat comes from the individuals inside your company. Depending on your security precautions, insiders can represent a more serious threat because they come in behind your firewall and perimeter security. They can (accidentally or intentionally) bring in a virus-infected disc, (if they have permission) disable security precautions like firewalls and antivirus, visit malicious web sites, etc. That's why most companies limit the level of access employees have to their computer systems. The typical employee in most companies can't install software, turn off antivirus, disable the firewall, or do anything else deemed "dangerous" by the IT security people. In OS X terms, most users aren't administrators or "root" on their own Macs. It's this kind of security that Apple, and the occasional third-party Mac software vendor, doesn't quite "get". Allow me to illustrate with a real world example from the Washington Post.

Back in June of this year (yes, I know I'm going back a bit, but this example just landed in my mailbox today so it's new to me), a significant vulnerability was discovered in Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard). To exploit this flaw, all an attacker needs is access to a Mac's command line interface. With said access, the attacker can enter a relatively simple command that tells the Apple Remote Desktop Agent to run an AppleScript. That AppleScript will run as "root" (super-administrator) and be able to do anything you can do with AppleScript. In other words, it gives anyone with physical access to the machine the virtual "keys to the kingdom". Best practice in corporate IT security dictates that you give a user the minimum level of security permission they need in order to do their job. For some users, that's the ability to login and run programs, for others it might include installing software, and for a select few, complete access. By not giving everyone the keys to the kingdom, you're better able to prevent the spread of malware, protect confidential data, and ensure the integrity of business processes. In most environments, there is more potential for an authorized user (independent of their security privileges) to intentionally or unintentionally harm corporate systems than an outsider, so this kind of security is in many ways even more important than firewalls and perimeter security.

When contacted about the vulnerability, Apple told users it was "not a cause for concern." If it's not a cause for concern when anyone can bypass all the operating system's security features, then what exactly IS a cause for concern? This is what I mean when I say that Apple doesn't quite "get" security. They respond well enough, albeit sometimes a bit slowly, when a flaw can lead to remote attacks on a Mac, but their response to "elevation of privilege" attacks shows that they don't see the bigger picture. Columnists talk about how Apple and the Mac aren't ready for a starring role in enterprise computing. This is a part of what they mean.

If Apple wants to continue being a niche player in the market, focusing on consumer computing and digital arts, then it can afford to be a little lax about "threats from inside". But if it really wants to have an effective presence in the corporate world, it needs to step up its game. Say what you will about Microsoft's security problems, but they understand the importance of both kinds of threats and don't downplay the concerns of their corporate customers. As Ryan Naraine said in the ZDNet article linked above, "hip and cool can only take you so far in the enterprise."

With the Leopard install updated and working, I loaded all the apps I normally use over on the Windows side: Gimp, OpenOffice, VLC, Firefox, Inkscape, Kompozer, and Freemind.  Most were drag-installs where (for the benefit of those who haven't used OS X) you drag an icon onto the "Applications" directory on the system to install it (no wizards, no step-by-steps, etc.).  A couple involved wizard-style installers.  

xquartz -depth 8

A Mac-loyal friend of mine who's aware of this site noticed my recent gaffe of being unaware of the "Mac OS X Software" option under the Apple menu in Leopard, and saw that I haven't had the opportunity to keep up with OS X since the release of leopard.  Since he has multiple Macs in his home, he decided to make a bet with me... He would loan me one of his 2 GHz Core 2 Duo Macs for a month.  If, at the end of that month, I decided that I needed a Mac for myself he would win the bet.  If I didn't decide I needed a Mac at the end of that time, he'd lose.  If he wins, I'll be renaming this site and registering for a new domain name.  If he loses, he pays my hosting costs for this site for the next 6 months (around $50).  

The following terms were agreed upon:

• I will use the Mac exclusively at home, with the exception of dealing with any technical calls for Windows support from work, for which I'll use Windows.
• I won't use the Mac at the office, for a variety of reasons.
• I'll post regular entries to this blog about my experiences, good and bad, with Leopard.
• If I come across some task that only a Windows application will resolve, I will try to run that application under Darwine rather than going back to Windows.

The Mac was dropped off on Saturday.  I fired it up and noticed that several patches were needed.  I began installing those patches.  In the middle of the 10.5.5 update, the Mac kernel-panicked.  After that, I couldn't boot it up at all.  (This was most likely a fluke, and I don't consider it a typical experience.)  I ended up reinstalling Leopard from a DVD and then applying all the available patches to it.  That suits my way of operating better anyway, since it helps me to be sure Leopard is set up the way I want it to be.

I spent some time on Saturday loading up the software I typically use on Windows and/or Linux:

• OpenOffice.org:  I use this rather than Microsoft Office at home for office automation tasks.  Since there's a Mac OS X version, it made sense to use it.
• FreeMind:  I use this open source application for brainstorming and idea organization.  The Mac version reads my existing files from Windows and Linux.
• Firefox:  I prefer this browser, but agreed I will give Safari first crack at any web pages I need to use at home, resorting to Firefox only when Safari doesn't work.
• Inkscape:  I use this open source drawing tool rather than Illustrator or Corel Draw.
• Gimp:  I use this open source image manipulator rather than PhotoShop.
• Kompozer:  For editing text intended for the web, I use this HTML editor.

It was nice to see that all the apps I use regularly exist on OS X, with one exception.  For one of my sites, I use a tool called "Check&Get" which monitors a list of web sites for changes, highlights changed sites, and even marks the changed text on those pages.  This allows me to scan hundreds of sites for potential news items to post on one of my blogs.  I haven't found a package that does this on OS X yet, though I suspect there is one.  

I spent a lot of time last night researching and brainstorming a "how to" article I'll be posting on one of my sites soon.  Safari handled all the sites I visited for that research, with FreeMind handling all the idea gathering, and Kompozer did the job for writing the draft.  So far, no crashes or problems with any of the applications I've used on OS X, or with OS X itself.

My friend thinks iLife '08 and a couple of other apps will convince me to come back to the Mac fold again.  He's going to bring the install disks over one evening this week and put them on this machine (after making sure he's got a legal license to install them there).  I'm curious to see how the applications compare to what I'm familiar with on Windows and Linux.

According to Physorg.com, Apple is facing increased pressure in Norway to change the way the iTunes Music Store and iPod work.  Norway's Consumer Ombudsman Erik Thon has asked Apple to make its online store compatible with music players other than the iPod.  Apple has attempted to show such compatibility by explaining to consumers how to burn songs to CD and rip those CDs into MP3s, but Thon says this is not enough and "iTunes has shown a lacking will to comply with our demand and we are now preparing to try this case in the Market Council...The company is in other words unwilling to make changes to make music in the iTunes Store available to all music players."

If Apple loses the case in the Market Council, our guess is that they will either stop doing business in Norway or they will alter the Norwegian iTunes store so that only those tracks available in MP3 format are sold there.  On the other hand, if Apple wins the case it's most likely nothing will change."

If you have one of the new aluminum MacBooks and you really wish you had a tablet Mac instead, Other World Computing will be happy to oblige you. Send your MacBook and an additional $1299, and they'll convert your MacBook into what they're calling the "Axiotron Modbook". You can also buy one outright for $2199 (and up). They claim to do the same for older plastic MacBooks as well.