Entries Tagged as 'Tech Comment'

Windows vs Mac… Who Cares?

Okay, so there are thousands of websites and blog posts which discuss, or argue, the rivalry between Microsoft Windows and Apple Macintosh computers. The problem with all of these arguments is that there is no point of argument. By that I don’t mean that there is no purpose (point) in arguing, but rather that there is no common assertion (point) to be debated. Windows is an operating system that can be installed and run on a wide variety of manufacturers’ hardware. A Macintosh is a computer built by the Apple company which only runs Apple’s own operating system (currently OS X), natively. In other words, a Macintosh (hereafter called a Mac) is a closed system, and Windows is a completely open system.

So what exactly is the point to be argued?

  1. That the Macintosh has better hardware than a Dell, a Gateway, a Hewlett-Packard, an Acer, an eMachine, a Falcon Northwest, a Lenovo, a Voodoo, an Alienware, a Sony? Which one? Or are we arguing…
  2. That Windows is a better operating system than OS X? How can you compare two systems that have completely opposite goals? Windows is designed to run on any of the above-named systems or on anything else you can throw together from parts off the shelf. OS X only runs on Apple systems. Or are we arguing…
  3. That a computer user would be better off with a Mac than with a computer running Windows? There are a lot of variables to factor into that decision which can change the answer.

Mac users tend to be very passionate about their computer choice. What I mean is that some of them are very vocal in defending the qualities of their Mac. They’ll use the word love to describe their relationship with their computer. Just put “love my Mac” in Google and you’ll get about a hundred thousand results. Those same people, usually male in gender, tend to be faithful to the Apple logo as well, hence, the term Apple fanboy. They will purchase any product which has an Apple logo, and they dismiss any criticism of those products as coming from an Apple-hater. The fallacy of that attitude is that there are no Apple-haters. Why would anyone care enough about a piece of hardware to invoke hate of the company who makes it? Only a self-proclaimed Apple-lover can imagine the existence an Apple-hater.

It is often said that the opposiste of love is apathay, not hate, and the same is true here.

The vast majority of Windows users tend to be less passionate. They tend not to get involved in this debate because, quite frankly, they don’t view their computer choice as a vote for Microsoft. It’s just the computer they bought at the store. They have no particular allegiance to Microsoft and probably couldn’t even name another Microsoft product.

A co-worker of mine once came to me and expressed her desire to have “Microsoft” put on her computer, which, of course, was already running on Microsoft Windows XP. After some further questioning, I realized that what she wanted was the Microsoft Office suite.

Most home users have probably never even seen a Mac, because Apple doesn’t sell Macs in home electronics departments, and none of their family members have a Mac. If the computer at the store came with Linux, they’d probably not notice that there was no Windows logo on the box, and if they saw a big LINUX sticker, they wouldn’t know what it meant anyway.

At one time, Apple ruled the personal computer market. They practically gave them away to schools so that kids’ first computer experience was an Apple computer. But, like youth soccer in America, they were never able to catch on to the adult market. Apple chose to remain a closed system while the IBM personal computer, running Microsoft’s operating system, became so open that anyone could build one, which meant they would also run Microsoft’s operating system. As a result, a Microsoft system was much less expensive than an Apple system. And cost drives the mass market.

I remember when a friend of mine was sending his son to college to study engineering. His son told him he had to have a Mac, which at the time cost about $5000. That same year IBM-compatible computers were selling for about $1200.

Today the Mac’s pricetag has become more competitive. It’s still a premium machine, but there are more expensive Windows machines, especially those built for video games. But that’s really the point. The normal consumer sees Windows machines in the store starting at about $400. They don’t know what they want, and they don’t know what they need. They just go by the price. Only computer-savvy buyers go online and customize a Windows machine with high-end components that drive the price up.

Windows runs about 90% of the computers sold in the US. Apple computers no longer fill the classrooms. Most business software is written for Windows, so Macs have a hard time making mass sales to large businesses. Historically, Macs have found their niche in the multimedia arena — music, photos, audio and video editing. Macs are overwhelmingly the choice for those professionals. That’s why you’ll see an inordinate number of Macs and Apple logos in movies and on TV. It is still one of their main selling points to consumers as well.

While Mac users passionately extoll the virtues of their Mac, deep down, they don’t want you to become a Mac user. If you did, and Macs became as pervasive as Windows PCs, then the Mac would lose its place on the pedestal. Mac users would lose their identity…

“You have a Mac? Yeah, my grandmother uses one to check her email.”

The Value of User-Generated Content

User-generated content is all the rage on the Internet. Sites like YouTube, Flickr, Wikipedia, and Digg.com have been highlighted in mainstream media, so a lot of people have at least heard those names, even if they’ve never visited the sites or understand how they work. These four sites in particular, and probably hundreds of others, exist only because users (that’s people like you and me) take time to submit their own material (known as content on the Internet) or to edit and rewrite someone else’s material.

The issue is, that if any of these websites become wildly popular, the owner becomes wildly famous and/or rich, while no compensation is considered for the hundreds and thousands of people who volunteered their time and energy to make it popular. So what is a person’s motivation for participating in these user-generated sites? Well, I can tell you my motivation.

For a few years, I was a volunteer editor for the dmoz Open Directory Project. I did it because I felt like I could improve the product for the benefit of other users who shared the same interests as me. I did it because these niche categories were mostly ignored on the ODP, and I felt that I could bring a level of expertise, from a technical standpoint, to edit these non-technical categories. So there was an element of self-satisfaction in the whole process. On my personal website I certainly included a link to my ODP categories (ODP always made it clear that the correct terminology is not “my category”, but rather, “the category I edit”) where users could see my name listed at the bottom of the page. I left the ODP because I found other interests which took up my free time.

I have never submitted anything to YouTube or the other video-sharing sites, but it seems to me that they actually provide a tangible service to their submitters. Similar to the photo-sharing site Flickr, they provide a free service for users to share digital media with family, friends, and the world. Of course, commercial ventures and wanna-be professionals use YouTube as free advertisement. Other amateur submitters hope to gain their proverbial 15 minutes of fame by producing a viral video.

The term viral has mutated once again. The biological virus is characterized by its ability to infect a host for the purposes of self-replication. It was adopted into the computer lexicon as a piece of malicious software which gets copied covertly to your computer, and then replicates itself onto other computers. Now the term is used to describe digital media, a video or audio track, which gets passed around intentionally from friend to friend as “you gotta see this!”

In the case of Digg, the users find news or feature articles from anywhere on the Internet, post the link on Digg, and then other users vote on which are their favorites. The stories that get the most diggs move to the front page. There is a definite benefit for the actual writers and publishers of the original content, in that, the higher they are on the Digg rankings, the more traffic they get to their site. In fact, sometimes having an article posted to Digg can generate so many visitors that servers on small websites get overwhelmed, causing the site to crash. This phenomenon is the well-known digg effect. For the people who submit stories, there is a competition of who submits the most stories that make it to the front page. As I see it, it’s similar to a video game. You play the game for the entertainment value and to get bragging rights for the top score, but there isn’t much benefit beyond that. So when the owners of Digg cash in their highly-valued website, all of those users who spent countless hours playing the game to make digg what it is, get nothing. But I don’t see any difference from a company that produces a popular product. People buy it, tell their friends, they buy it, and the company makes a lot of money.

The Wikipedia is another huge website built on user-generated content. In essence it is an online encyclopedia, but its scope goes well beyond the traditional 30-volume set of books from your childhood. But the most unique feature is its method of growth. Any user, including you, can add material to the Wikipedia. The advantage is that the Wikipedia can be instantly updated. For example, when Barry Bonds broke the career home run record, it was immediately updated on his entry and on Hank Aaron’s entry before the game was over. For those unfamiliar with the site, it may sound like Wikipedia would get trashed by a lot of false information. The theory, though, is that so many people view and edit the articles, that people with expertise would immediately correct any misinformation. I have added material to Wikipedia myself. In all cases, my contributions are concerned with historical people and events, and I always post my references as part of the article. My motivation is similar to what I described about the ODP.

So what is the current state of funding for these sites? dmoz ODP is funded by the Netscape/Mozilla family of Internet products. YouTube was purchased by Google from the original developers for 1.65 billion dollars earlier this year. Digg is still funded by venture capital investors. Wikipedia is a non-profit venture which is funded by donations. Recently I heard the founder of Wikipedia being interviewed. The host asked him why he doesn’t just put advertising on the site, and he defended his decision to keep it non-profit. From my perspective, if Wikipedia ever becomes a profit-generating site, it undermines the motivation for users to volunteer their time and effort. Consider the following scenario.

An elderly widow in our neighborhood could not maintain the general upkeep on her home. The mortgage was settled, but she had no means to hire someone to do general repairs or even to cut the grass. So the neighborhood association took it upon themselves to help her out. The neighbors donated funds and material, and every weekend there were volunteers to mow the lawn, paint the porch, repair the roof, and even replace part of the tile floor inside. After several months, her house was looking pretty good, and we all felt rather proud of our accomplishment. And then her son showed up. He took her out of the house, put the house up for sale, and sold it for much more than it was worth only months before. How do you think the volunteers felt then?

Social Websites, Unite!

Social websites are popping up everywhere… Friendster, MySpace, Facebook, Bebo, Twitter, Jaiku, Pownce, Flickr… the list goes on and on. The idea is that you create virtual groups of friends so you can share everything online and keep each other informed. You can share news, photos, music, links, or you can just tell everyone where you are and what you are doing. The competition for these sites is to get you to sign up for an account. They’re all free (mostly), and easy to do. The problem is that they only work if your friends are on the same site. And the hot site today may not be so hot tomorrow, so you move on to another site.

My question is, where are the web developers when you need them? Why can’t you just communicate between social websites? Yes, I know you can set up RSS feeds to aggregate your posts in and out, but you still have to have an account on each one to use them. In 1971, Ray Tomlinson developed the modern email application by standardizing the use of the @ symbol. He created a protocol whereby computer files could be sent across the network to people who were on different domains — you know, like tiger@tree.com could send a message to flea@dirt.com. Tiger and Flea didn’t have to have accounts on the same domain to exchange data (Yes, I know that was in the old Arpanet days, before there were any dot coms, but you get my point). The same should be true of social network websites. If you have a Facebook, you should be able to add a friend from MySpace or Bebo. The application and protocol should exist for you to create the same friends list across websites, just like Tomlinson’s email.

Now that I think about it, maybe I’ll write the protocol myself. Let me fire up my GW-BASIC interpreter and see what I can do.

On the Web

BrokenClaw has been up and running since October, 2000. We started as a free, ad-sponsored homepage in 1998 on Xoom.com (which was later bought by NBCi.com, which was later absorbed into msnbc.com, and is now something completely different, so don’t even go there), then we switched to our ISP supported homepage (you know, one of those /~user websites), and now we have our very own domain.

Read more →

In the Media

Cecil Soil, Summer 2005 My article about the aboriginal Susquehannock tribe was reprinted in the Summer 2005 edition of Cecil Soil magazine, a local magazine for and about Cecil County, Maryland.

Our Christmas Carols page consistently gets the most attention on and off the Web. It was included in the November, 2002, issue of Family Fun magazine, in the family computer article called A Visit from St. Click. The author, Leslie Garisto Pfaff, outlined “five ways your PC can simplify your life, organize your projects, and save you time in this busy season.” The author highlighted our search feature to help you find those elusive lyrics.

Family Fun, Nov 2002 In November, 2001, our web site was featured on the local news broadcast on KFSM-TV5, in Fort Smith, Arkansas. Scott Johnston, the station’s resident “web doctor,” happened to find us while doing a search for Christmas carols. He was so impressed by the content and layout of our site, that he decided to give us a plug on his spot during the local news. He described BrokenClaw as a fine example of what a personal website can be. As a result of his television story, we received thousands of extra visitors that evening, many of whom left kind remarks in the guest book and via email.

Our Carols page was also cited in a newspaper article in Canada, in the Muskoka Advance from Bracebridge, Ontario. The feature column is called “Exploring the Net” by Doug Smith. In his Christmas article, he recommended our Carols page, with the comment that it can’t be beat! He even quoted my own description of the page: lyrics “in simple text format, without any blinking lights or dancing reindeer.”