We should be starting our Internet Browswer review series today, however, I need a little more time to refine my thoughts. In the mean time, I wanted to tell you about a site that I just recently found called LifeHacker.com. According to the site's "about" page, LifeHacker is "an award-winning, daily blog that features tips, shortcuts, and downloads that help you get things done smarter and more efficiently. Lifehacker launched in January 2005, and now ranks as one of the top-linked blogs on the internet according to Technorati. In 2006 Wired Magazine named Lifehacker Best Blog in their annual Rave Awards ceremony. Lifehacker's also been mentioned in The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, O, The Oprah Magazine and PC Magazine as well as other mainstream press outlets."
Sound cool? Well it is. To find out why YOU think its cool, its probably best to just go there and check it out. The site provides a lot of practical, hands-on solutions to all kinds of problems and situations. They provide free downloads of applications that are fun and easy to use. They review other applications and provide brief tutorials on how to use them. Basically, I think the site is cool because its basically the kind of site I would make if I had the expertise, editorial staff, programming staff, and time that the makers of LifeHacker have.
So LifeHacker covers subjects that are typically computer related (e.g. Apple and Microsoft software, reviewing productivity software, even how to setup your own home server) but they also cover practical everyday life subjects like health, food, and entertainment. Here are 3 recent posts that I found very useful:
Welcome to Part 4 of the Mac or PC mini-series. We have covered the price, operating system performance, and perks of the operating systems. Its been a bit exhausting up to this point but I hope that the information helps you make a choice. If not that, I hope that you at least know more now about Vista and Leopard, PC and Mac than you did before. Today's focus is to talk about quality a bit and finally conclude the mini-series. Here we go:
Is quality an issue? The question of quality is really related to consumer perception and actual performance. It boils down to a question of the manufacturing inputs involved for both companies. There is a huge difference between Apple and Microsoft on this front. Apple controls every aspect of their supply chain. They find hardware suppliers (sometimes do it themselves), they manage the logistics, they control the distribution channel. Microsoft, on the other hand, is involved solely in selling licenses. They sell the right to distribute their OS to an OEM (original equipment manufacturer) Dell, HP, Sony, etc. They don't necessarily care about the supply chain to the extent that Apple does. They don't sell the computers that contain their OS. They sell the OS. How does this relate to quality? Apple can control the quality of their OS, the processor, the memory, the hard drive, the blah, the blah , the blah. Microsoft can control the quality of the OS, the vendor, the... that's it.
I think the most obvious implication of this fundamental difference is that Apple can control more aspects of the system their OS is delivered on than can Microsoft. You can ONLY buy Mac from Apple or licensed dealers and either way Apple produces it, no one else. You can buy a PC from any licensed distributor: in other words, Vista can be found on a wide spectrum of systems ranging from real crap to superb. So, when purchasing a PC, you MUST be aware of who you are buying the system from AND what system you are purchasing. Boiled down, a consumer of PC and Mac asks his or herself the following basic questions for each:
PC = what do I want? who am I getting it from? what system? what hardware? will it work? Mac = what do I want? what system?
The purchasing decision for a Mac buyer is fundamentally easier than it is for a PC buyer. The question of quality, therefore, is more straightforward for Mac buyers than PC buyers (i.e. Mac buyers know what they are getting, PC buyers know what they are getting after more research and evaluation of each manufacturer and system).
Is one really better than the other? If we are just talking about the operating systems, both are very good. Both Vista and Leopard are wonderful accomplishments. To find out which one you prefer most, use them. Play with both of them and do the things you normally do on a computer. You will find out a lot more that way than you will reading my post. I hope that through this little exploration, you have learned new things about both systems and I hope that you will go out and use both. Honestly, I use both operating systems and I really like both of them.
So that's it for this mini-series. Its been fun! Lastly, remember that quality depends on the manufacturer. So if you do decide to buy a PC, investigate the manufacturer AND the specific model you are purchasing. Do a google search for problems with specific models and you will find out if they are having HDD problems, incompatability issues, or whatever.
Welcome to the third installment of the Mac or PC mini-series: Operating System - Perks. I call this section "perks" because it is really an explanation of the features of each operating system that are unique to it. I don't want to talk about the things that each operating system does that the other does just as well like mail applications or iTunes. You will notice, however, that I will focus on certain things that, although both can do, one does better. I want to explore the perks of each operating system as extensively as possible so we will do Vista today and Leopard tomorrow. So let's get started.
Aero: this is the sleek new GUI (graphics user interface) that is a part of the new PC user experience. I briefly mentioned this new feature in my last post but it is certainly of note here. Really, Aero by itself is too broad. Lets narrow it down by the features of the new GUI:
Glass: This is what makes the whole environment look glossy and transparent. You can even customize the colors of your windows to give it the look and feel you prefer the most. The transparency of the windows can be increased so that the windows are practically see-through. Look at the picture to the right and notice that the borders surrounding each of the windwos are practically transparant. This gives Vista a very sophisticated look.
High dpi: Vista comes with greaters dpi (dots per inch) power. Basically, the resolution is better using Vista than in any previous version of Windows.
Live Thumbnails: This is nifty little feature that allows you to see what a minimized window is simply by putting the cursor over the top of it. It expands an image of the window so you can figure out if that is the one you really wanted to open. See the picture on the Right.
Windows Flip and Flip 3-D: Windows Flip by itself is not a new or unique feature. The 3-D version is though. Flip allows you to select between windows on your desktop by pressing alt+tab. A selecter opens up that allows you to tab through to find the window you want. Flip 3-D does the same thing, only it actually arranges the windows in a 3-D fashion and allows you to pick one. I like this feature and it definitely adds to the user experience of Vista.
I have to be fair here. While these features are really nice, they make Vista an extremely heavy operating system. The idea behind Vista, according to Microsoft, was to make it easier to focus on content rather than the environment. Well, I guess I'm not sure if they accomplished that by focusing on the environment and loading it down with features. A lot of Vista users, myself included, agree that Vista is too heavy for its own good. Which is actually why, in the windows family, I prefer the XP diet. Vista users would be interested in the ReadyBoost feature (see below) that offsets this rather significant disadvantage. Office Apps: I personally feel that Microsoft Office 2007 is the most innovative package of office applications available. The "ribbon" idea is extremely easy to use. The buttons on the ribbon make it very easy to get what you want in a document, spreadsheet, or database. I will admit that it does require the user to learn the nuances, however, once learned, Office 2007 is a powerful office suite. I really like it. To make a direct comparison with Office 2008 for Mac, the PC version is much more powerful. I am not sure if this is because Microsoft does not want to make an "as-awesome" version of Office for Mac or if Mac users don't think that the PC style is "as-awesome" as the Mac style. Basically, I hate that Office Mac uses a toolbox which is far inferior to the ribbon on Office PC. Either way, because I personally dislike Office 2008 for Mac I virtualize Office 2007 for PC on my Mac. I included two screenshots so you can see the ribbon in 2007 and the toolbox in 2008.
ReadyBoost: This feature compensates for some of the heavier aspects of Vista, specifically those memory taxing aspects of Vista. ReadyBoost is probably one of the coolest features I have seen on a PC in a long time. Basically, it allows you to use a thumb drive as memory. It works by sending any overflow from the system memory to a cache on the thumb drive. When you initially plug in a thumb drive into your computer, Vista will recognize it and ask you what you want to do with it (i.e. open it, play the music on it, play a video, etc.). You will also be asked if you want the drive as your ReadyBoost drive. If it doesn't ask you that, go to My Computer, right click and select properties, click the ready boost tab and set up the drive that way. You can allot up to half of the drives capacity (i.e. 2 gb for a 4 gb stick, 4 for an 8, etc) up to 4gb total. I just happen to have tried it on both the 2 gb and 4gb setting (I have a 4gb and 8gb stick) and the 4gb was almost superfluous. Using 1gb of system memory I ran an operation that took around 15 seconds (eons - it felt like). Adding ReadyBoost with 2gb extra memory, the same operating took 2.5 seconds. Using 4gb of memory it took around 2 seconds. So it works and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. There is a claimed disadvantage to this feature pointing to the fact that flash memory can only carry out a finite number of "writes" and that eventually your drive will be worn out. This is true, but it will take around 10 years for most drives.
That does it for Vista, stay tuned tomorrow for the post on Leopard.
Welcome to Part 2 of the Mac or PC mini-series. Today's topic for discussion is the differences between the operating systems utilized by the Mac and PC respectively. As we all know, PC's are based on the Windows operating systems while Mac is based upon the OS X operating systems. Popular versions of Windows include 95, 98, 2000, XP, and most currently Vista. Recent popular versions of the Mac OS include Tiger and Leopard. Today's discussion will focus mainly on the performance characteristics of each of the operating system’s most current platforms, Vista and Leopard. We will focus on the requirements of each OS and talk a bit about performance: Here are the minimum requirements for each system:
Windows Vista: * 1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor * 1 GB of system memory * 40 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space * Support for DirectX 9 graphics with: o WDDM Driver o 128 MB of graphics memory (minimum) o Pixel Shader 2.0 in hardware o 32 bits per pixel
Leopard: * Mac computer with an Intel, PowerPC G5, or PowerPC G4 (867MHz or faster) processor * 512MB of memory * DVD drive for installation * 9GB of available disk space * Some features require a compatible Internet service provider; fees may apply. * Some features require Apple's .Mac service; fees apply.
Now, let's compare and contrast the two OS's in a factual manner. I will try to keep my opinions out (although a couple might seep out). The factors we will focus on here are processors, memory, appearance, and battery usage for laptop owners:
Processors: As you can tell, the processor requirements are basically the same. Mac still uses the PowerPC processor although it only manufactures its new computers using Intel chips. Really, both need to be run on dual core chips. You won't be able to run Mac on an Intel chip designed before a certain date that aren't core based (which is only really applicable if you want to run Leopard on a PC). Additionally, PC supports AMD processors while Mac does not. AMD are supposively better at running games and stuff. As far as processors are concerned, no huge differences unless you really want to play games on an AMD.
Memory usage: There are significant differences between the machines on this front. I have run Vista on 1gb of memory and I have to say, it sucked. Personally, I think Vista is a bogged down version of XP (oops, an opinion). That is to say, they added some features pinnacled by the Aero GUI (said gooey, Graphics User Interface) that gives Vista that sleek, smooth look. The only drawback is that it consumes a lot of memory (unless your machine has a video card with autonomous memory - which is to say, it does not share memory with the machine. Most computers don't come with video cards like that). Try this, if you run Vista and are using the desktop sidebar, it should come with a system performance monitor (if it isn’t there, click the little plus sign on top of the sidebar and select CPU performance or whatever). It looks like a speedometer. Now, with all applications closed, look at the monitor. It will tell you how much memory your system is using just sitting there. Right now, mine says 40% of 1gb... with nothing running (besides the sidebar). Mac, on the other hand, is another story. To give you an idea, I am currently using 1 gb (of 2) with the following open: 6 pages of Firefox, a sticky note program, a 4gb download, Word, Powerpoint, iChat, Microsoft Messenger, Divx Player, iMail, iCal, and iTunes (playing the Killers). I am only using half of what I have. So, hopefully that illustrates the differences of system usage for you.
Appearance: Vista is a very sleek looking OS. The lines are much smoother than XP (which was huge for XP when it came out because its lines were really smooth too). The Aero graphics enhancement feature is really quite neat. I have turned Aero on and off to see the difference and it’s big. Leopard is also a very sleek looking OS. Its GUI is a bit different in terms of memory taxation (discussed above). Leopard doesn't need a super-duper video card which excludes it from being able to play a lot of the new computer games because it does not typically use acceleration and such, but then again, PC's don't usually come standard with graphics acceleration. This can be a pretty serious disadvantage to the gaming inclined. However, if you don't really play computer games (because you hate them or play PS3, Xbox360, or Wii) then who cares if the computer plays games. A lot of people do, however, watch movies on their computer and both Vista and Leopard playback movies in similar quality. The LCD screens on both are relative equivalents although PC's can really vary in quality as manufacturers differ.
Battery: For Laptop users: The battery usage between the two OS's vary substantially. Vista is quite draining on a battery. It can drain a battery about 50% faster than XP. A typical computer running windows Vista gets about 1-2 hours of charge on average. I went ahead and tested this by running Vista on my machine and asking some family and friends that use Vista to see what kind of charge they were getting. Most computers reported about 1.5 hours of charge. So what of the Mac? Leopard is FAR LESS DRAINING on the battery. If I am running typical programs like a web browser, word processor, or what have you, I get around 5 hours of charge. If I watch a movie that number drops to 4 hours. This is true of all MacBooks, however, I cannot personally vouch for the Pro. So, I asked some guy and some other guy (on separate occasions) that I found in the hall at school and they reported 4 hours per charge. The pro has better hardware so no big stretch of the imagination there.
My Take: Now I will let my opinions flow forth. As far as system performance is related to the operating systems run by Mac and PC respectively, I would conclude that the Mac outperforms the PC. There is really only one area where PC is typically better than the average Mac and that is in the video cards they use on average. However, I must say that this difference is trivial considering there aren’t many computer gamers left in the world and why would you really need all that video power without any use for it? Waste of money really. Memory and Battery usage are two areas where Leopard really outperforms Vista.
I won’t say much more than that. Please feel free to comment on what has been written. I would love to respond to any concerns or questions you have about today’s subject.
Welcome to Part 3 of our Virtualization mini-series. Today's feature is VMware Fusion. If you didn't read Part 1: Basics of Virtualization or Part 2: VMware Workstation, you can follow those links to the posts. This post will wrap up our discussion of virtualization and I hope that it wasn't a total bust. I hope it was interesting for y'all to read.
VMware Fusion is basically the same thing as VMware Workstation only made specially for Mac. Wait Windows users, before you stop reading, this is important for you to know because this is how you can run both Mac and Windows OS's without even a hiccup (when you buy a Mac). Fusion allows you to run any OS (Vista, XP, Linux, even Windows 95, 98, ME, 2000, whatever!) just like Workstation. In Part 2, I explained how the virtualization software works on the surface. Basically, it sets up fake hard drives in normal file folders and uses those folders to install the OS. Fusion is the same as Workstation in that regard. Pretty much, although there are many differences, the two software suites are basically the same. The big difference (as far as I can tell) is a single feature: Unity Mode.
Unity Mode allows you to run an operating system (I will be using XP for my examples - its way better than Vista) as if the operating system wasn't actually running (just so you know, my computer is a Macbook with a 2.4GHz Intel 2 Duo and 4 GB of DDR2 RAM). So what does that mean? Well, basically it hides the actual Fusion window and makes it appear as if the OS weren't running. You can, however, load any Windows program as if it was part of the Mac. So, if you were considering getting a Mac (because they are sweet), but were afraid that you wouldn't be able to run those Windows programs you love so much, don't worry about it. You can run them without problem. Here, take a look at some of these screen shots from my own computer:
You can see here, XP running inside Mac. Look at the top title bar and notice that it says VMware Fusion.
This is Fusion running XP which is running Firefox
The Unity icon that switches to Unity mode (from this point on, the shots will be in Unity mode)
This is Unity Mode with the Windows Task Bar. You can see that the desktop is my Mac desktop and the Task Bar is XP's.
This one is Unity Mode without the task bar. You can open programs using the Fusion bar on top, selecting applications, etc. All the programs on that list are from XP.
Unity Mode running My Computer. Notice the bottom icon that says, shared folder on .host(z). That is the network connection between my virtual XP and my Mac.
Lastly, Mac Spaces demonstrating XP in fullscreen mode running its own, autonomous space from the rest of my Mac computer.
Whew, thats that. Well I hope you have enjoyed this mini-series on Virtualization. My hope is that you learned something and have a desire to either experiment or learn more about it. Make comments if you have questions and I will answer them. Thanks for reading!
This post, unfortunately, is not one you can use unless you own a Mac. But wait! Its really cool so you should still read it. This post is all about Spaces.
What is Spaces? Spaces is software that comes attached to Mac OSx 10 (Leapord, for our purposes). The basic idea is that it splits up your desktop into numerous spaces. Other operating systems do this too (like Linux) and in really spiffy ways too. But the way Mac does it is pretty sweet. So here is a case example for you: Lets say that during your typical session in front of the computer you will listen to music, watch some Youtube videos, check your mail, balance your budget, and find directions to a store downtown. All of these tasks will require that you open some sort of program and maybe even keep it running. You might even be a huge multi-tasker (like me) and want all of the programs open at once so you can do them at your leisure. Okay, as you all know, having a lot of windows open in can really be a mess on the desktop. You wish there was a way to divide these tasks by function so that you can clear away some of the clutter. Well, Spaces does that for you. Spaces allows you to create a variety of desktops that you can select between seamlessly. Here is a snapshot of my Spaces. Right now I am using 6. I used to use 4 but it just wasn't enough anymore... Click on the image to make it big.
As you can see, I am checking out my favorite blog, doing homework behind that, listening to music on iTunes, I am gettting ready to type up a paper for calss, I have my calandar, mail, and chat up, I am checking out Google Earth, AND I am running Windows XP. All of this is taking place at once, on seperate "desktops" and I can switch between the without a problem (the screen shot is the screen that allows me to select which desktop I want to go to). Holy Cow, huh? Its pretty sweet. The best thing about it is I don't have a clutter of windows on one desktop but as many windows I want, spread accross however many Spaces I want. I love Spaces.
We should be starting our Internet Browswer review series today, however, I need a little more time to refine my thoughts. In the mean time, I wanted to tell you about a site that I just recently found called LifeHacker.com. According to the site's "about" page, LifeHacker is "an award-winning, daily blog that features tips, shortcuts, and downloads that help you get things done smarter and more efficiently. Lifehacker launched in January 2005, and now ranks as one of the top-linked blogs on the internet according to Technorati. In 2006 Wired Magazine named Lifehacker Best Blog in their annual Rave Awards ceremony. Lifehacker's also been mentioned in The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, O, The Oprah Magazine and PC Magazine as well as other mainstream press outlets."
Posts
