I've been thinking about what is really cool and what is really a fad in computing. Fad = iPad. Cool = IP PBX, especially if you have a new house.
Consider this, particularly if you have purchased a home built in the last few years. Most low-voltage wiring companies (Guardian, for example) run only two types of wire, RG-6 and CAT-5. I personally think it has something with the (lack of) intelligence of their hiring pool, but that's another issue altogether. However, with all the phone lines being run as CAT-5 cable, you can easily replace the phone jacks with network jacks, and you can purchase IP phones for about $100 each. The PBX, normally the expensive part of the equation, can be done with a halfway (only halfway by modern standards) machine running Asterisk open source IP PBX. Heck, just about any geek has an extra computer collecting dust somewhere.
Imagine how much geek envy your friends would have when their calls are routed via an auto-attendant to the proper ring or phone, and when your spouse transfers their call to another phone.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
iPad = Crap
I wasn't going to do it, but I will. I think the iPad is crap.
No Storage
Looking at how much of my hard drive is devoted to my iTunes Library (40 GB) and thinking about what I would actually do with something that I don't have to squint to look at, I would want more. More Movies, probably. More 1.5 GB movies, likely (I looked at the three movies I've ripped to my hard drive, and they range from 1.3 to 1.67 GB). I could run out of space on even the 64 GB (most storage) model pretty quickly. So why, then would I buy something with such limited storage? Hell, I can get an iPod with 160 GB of storage! Why can't I even get half of that on the iPad?
Unreplaceable Battery
Why does Apple keep creating products that have batteries that are damn near impossible to change? Does Stevie really expect us to buy more stuff when the batteries go bad? This is probably going to be like the iPod and the Mac Mini that are extremely difficult to open?
App Store?
I'm guessing that most apps on the app store were written with the iPhone and iPod Touch in mind. That being said, why then, would I want an app designed for a screen that is something like 1.5"x3" on anything larger than maybe 2"x4"? Heck, FB for Blackberry is great... ON MY BLACKBERRY! It would completely suck on my MacBook Pro. This "feature" isn't one at all - it basically says that there are no apps for this thing (other than a few that Apple brought out) and it isn't going to get better for a while (if it ever does).
No Card Reader?
When I heard that Stevie was showing photos in the media event, I figured that he would have the wherewithal to put a minimum of a CF and a SD card slot on the thing. Guess I was wrong. Not even a USB port for those that have their camera cable.
My Expectations
I EXPECTED an Apple tablet to be similar in form (but with a reasonably easy to replace battery) running a special version of Snow Leopard that would allow me to run programs like Safari, Mail, iPhoto, iMovie, Quicktime+iTunes, iCal, Address Book, and iWork. I EXPECTED something that would have plenty of storage for all my music, movies, and pictures. I'm not expecting something that could run Parallels, or have a Terminal interface... basically not a desktop replacement, but something better than an overpriced e-book reader.
No Storage
Looking at how much of my hard drive is devoted to my iTunes Library (40 GB) and thinking about what I would actually do with something that I don't have to squint to look at, I would want more. More Movies, probably. More 1.5 GB movies, likely (I looked at the three movies I've ripped to my hard drive, and they range from 1.3 to 1.67 GB). I could run out of space on even the 64 GB (most storage) model pretty quickly. So why, then would I buy something with such limited storage? Hell, I can get an iPod with 160 GB of storage! Why can't I even get half of that on the iPad?
Unreplaceable Battery
Why does Apple keep creating products that have batteries that are damn near impossible to change? Does Stevie really expect us to buy more stuff when the batteries go bad? This is probably going to be like the iPod and the Mac Mini that are extremely difficult to open?
App Store?
I'm guessing that most apps on the app store were written with the iPhone and iPod Touch in mind. That being said, why then, would I want an app designed for a screen that is something like 1.5"x3" on anything larger than maybe 2"x4"? Heck, FB for Blackberry is great... ON MY BLACKBERRY! It would completely suck on my MacBook Pro. This "feature" isn't one at all - it basically says that there are no apps for this thing (other than a few that Apple brought out) and it isn't going to get better for a while (if it ever does).
No Card Reader?
When I heard that Stevie was showing photos in the media event, I figured that he would have the wherewithal to put a minimum of a CF and a SD card slot on the thing. Guess I was wrong. Not even a USB port for those that have their camera cable.
My Expectations
I EXPECTED an Apple tablet to be similar in form (but with a reasonably easy to replace battery) running a special version of Snow Leopard that would allow me to run programs like Safari, Mail, iPhoto, iMovie, Quicktime+iTunes, iCal, Address Book, and iWork. I EXPECTED something that would have plenty of storage for all my music, movies, and pictures. I'm not expecting something that could run Parallels, or have a Terminal interface... basically not a desktop replacement, but something better than an overpriced e-book reader.
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Word Cannot Exit
I've heard of software unexpectedly closing. I've never heard of software that, due to an error, cannot close.
Windows Blocked Files
This one comes with a story. I downloaded a file from the US Census Bureau at work. I tried a few ways to unzip the file, but kept getting the error below:
However, when following the instructions to unblock the file, it doesn't work. I ultimately copied the file over to my trusty MacBook Pro and tried (by double-clicking on it), to no avail. Then, I opened up Terminal (which has its own space on the dock on my Mac), and unzipped it with a minor complaint. After this, I talked to our IT consultant, who also tried to unblock the file, and while he could get the instructions, he did not have an unblock button (which wouldn't have worked).
IE 7 isn't later than IE 5?
I tried to get updates from Windows Update after upgrading to IE 7. Just as much of a mistake as using FireFox.
This was made a while back, I just haven't got around to uploading it until now.
10.6 falsely reports service battery? ... POSSIBLY!
Ref: 10.6 falsely reports service battery? ... I think not.
This is another example of piss-poor tech writing. This retard author tries to claim that there is no way that Snow Leopard can cause battery problems. There is proof on the Apple discussion thread that he could be incorrect, and even in my case, with my 3-year-old MacBook Pro with a 14-month-old battery, it appears that those that claim that Snow Leopard could be causing battery problems may be on the right track.
Consider this:
15 minutes ago, I checked Coconut Battery against System Profiler. They match. I'm only bringing this up to establish that Coconut Battery reads correctly.
Then, I read the life in Coconut Battery... 37% (2087 mAh)
Then, I shut down the computer, reset the SMC, and re-read the battery... 41% (2287 mAh).
Proof:
Now, if the battery was indeed going bad, I shouldn't have gained an extra 200 mAh by just resetting the SMC. A bad battery is a bad battery, and its capacity would continue to decline.
That being said, I'm not pleased at all with the quality of Apple Laptop Batteries. The battery currently in my computer was acquired around 2008-11-12. In the 1 year and 2 months since then, the capacity has dropped from 95% to 41% (or 37%, hell, I don't know anymore). Who knows, maybe Snow Leopard EXACERBATES an existing battery problem. Maybe it CAUSES a new battery problem. Regardless, the 48 pages of comments on Apple's own discussion forum are probably a lot more than what happened after Tiger and Leopard were released, and since the last comment was today, I'm willing to guess that there is a problem in both the batteries and in Snow Leopard. We should expect 3 years or so out of a battery, not a >50% loss of capacity after 1 year.
As I was writing this, I saw my remaining time jump from 40-something minutes to an hour. Maybe Snow Leopard isn't eating the battery, but it certainly is confused by mine, and probably many others.
Cupertino, we have a problem.
Getting back to the reason for writing this, 10.6 Falsely Reports Service Battery? I think so! Whatever is going on, SL is obviously not doing something right. I imagine that it isn't eating the batteries (as is suggested by some of the posts on Apple's discussion board), but it definitely is flawed in the reporting of the information. I don't buy the thought that it was intentional by Apple to do something to cause batteries to go out to get more revenues from batteries. I imagine that there is some very questionable manufacturing (after all, these are Sony batteries, which have been known to catch fire in Dells) and that SL can't read it right. Probably a combination of the two.
This is another example of piss-poor tech writing. This retard author tries to claim that there is no way that Snow Leopard can cause battery problems. There is proof on the Apple discussion thread that he could be incorrect, and even in my case, with my 3-year-old MacBook Pro with a 14-month-old battery, it appears that those that claim that Snow Leopard could be causing battery problems may be on the right track.
Consider this:
15 minutes ago, I checked Coconut Battery against System Profiler. They match. I'm only bringing this up to establish that Coconut Battery reads correctly.
Then, I read the life in Coconut Battery... 37% (2087 mAh)
Then, I shut down the computer, reset the SMC, and re-read the battery... 41% (2287 mAh).
Proof:
Now, if the battery was indeed going bad, I shouldn't have gained an extra 200 mAh by just resetting the SMC. A bad battery is a bad battery, and its capacity would continue to decline.
That being said, I'm not pleased at all with the quality of Apple Laptop Batteries. The battery currently in my computer was acquired around 2008-11-12. In the 1 year and 2 months since then, the capacity has dropped from 95% to 41% (or 37%, hell, I don't know anymore). Who knows, maybe Snow Leopard EXACERBATES an existing battery problem. Maybe it CAUSES a new battery problem. Regardless, the 48 pages of comments on Apple's own discussion forum are probably a lot more than what happened after Tiger and Leopard were released, and since the last comment was today, I'm willing to guess that there is a problem in both the batteries and in Snow Leopard. We should expect 3 years or so out of a battery, not a >50% loss of capacity after 1 year.
As I was writing this, I saw my remaining time jump from 40-something minutes to an hour. Maybe Snow Leopard isn't eating the battery, but it certainly is confused by mine, and probably many others.
Cupertino, we have a problem.
Getting back to the reason for writing this, 10.6 Falsely Reports Service Battery? I think so! Whatever is going on, SL is obviously not doing something right. I imagine that it isn't eating the batteries (as is suggested by some of the posts on Apple's discussion board), but it definitely is flawed in the reporting of the information. I don't buy the thought that it was intentional by Apple to do something to cause batteries to go out to get more revenues from batteries. I imagine that there is some very questionable manufacturing (after all, these are Sony batteries, which have been known to catch fire in Dells) and that SL can't read it right. Probably a combination of the two.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)