Do You Prefer a Glossy or Matte Finish to Your Computer/Laptop Monitor?

PC Pro Magazine in the UK polled readers about their preference for glossy or matte computer screens. Not surprisingly, the overwhelming majority of readers wanted matte/non-reflective screens. I wholeheartedly agree with my UK computer using brethren. I dislike my MacBook’s glossy screen, and I also dislike the exorbitant extra cost to upgrade to a matte screen. Unfortunately for some, matte finishes are not available on their computers, including the new iMac. I suppose the industry’s shift to glossy screens is money: I suspect that it is cheaper to install a piece of clear gorilla glass over an LCD than the extra processing that would be required for a matte finish. However, the economy of scale of shifting everything back to a matte finish should diminish the cost across the industry. Why are we still locked into the gloss? I want matte.

Read the poll results here:  Glossy vs matte screens: why the PC industry’s out of touch | PC Pro blog.

Sony Chief Howard Stringer Given to Overstatements Regarding Security

Sony’s CEO Howard Stringer is reported to have made an amazing overstatement today regarding the massive security breach of the Playstation Network: “We are up and running, and we are safer than ever” (via Sony Chief Howard Stringer Likens Hackers To Mujahideen). Perhaps by “ever” he means “before, we were running a wide-open version of Apache with nary a security update or firewall in sight, but now, we have implemented some semblance of protection for our customers’ online data.” Find out more about how easy it was for the “hackers” to break through or merely hop over Sony’s less-than-watertight defenses here.

Remember Skype’s High Water Mark, Microsoft Acquires Skype for $8.5 Billion, Probably All Downhill

According to Ars Technica and other news sources, Microsoft Acquires Skype for $8.5 Billion.

A simple question: Why? eBay purchased and then sold Skype for a huge loss after they never did anything substantial with the telephony service. Now, Microsoft is laying down $8.5 billion for Skype to purchase it from the company that acquired it from eBay. Perhaps Microsoft has big plans to transition to a telephony carrier. Perhaps they are simply trying to diversify their portfolio. However, $8.5 billion is nearly half of NASA’s budget for this year! That’s a load of cash for a telephony service that no-where-near gets enough revenue as it now stands to justify this kind of purchase. Microsoft has reportedly never made such a high-priced acquisition before, so I suspect that they have some secret up their sleeve for leveraging Skype and its technology in future products and services.

If Microsoft’s track record is any indication of their future plans for Skype, I suspect that it will be integrated into upcoming Windows releases as yet another layer of crap that doesn’t need to be built into an operating system. Take Windows 7 for example. I reinstalled it yesterday via Oracle’s Virtual Box software, and I immediately trashed it when I couldn’t get some software to run. However, I played around with it for a bit to see how things have changed. It is more streamlined than Vista, but it still contains loads of junk that the OS doesn’t need. Furthermore, it has counter-intuitive navigational and storage spaces for users.

Like others, I can say that Windows 7 is alright despite its problems, but I only say this because it corrects for the substantial problems in Vista. This shouldn’t be the way it is for a monolithic industry leader in modern computing technology. Instead of having Windows releases stand on their own as innovative products, I have read time and time again how Windows 7 stands in good stead due to the fact that it corrects for the horrible problems in Vista (bloat, system memory usage, instability, etc.). Microsoft shouldn’t premiere any OS that looks like and acts like it was built by 5 year old programmers playing in a sandbox. Yet, they do. Repeatedly.

What does this tell me about Skype, which generally does what it is supposed to do–allow you to talk and video chat with people around the world for a reasonable price–Microsoft is going to screw the pooch when they sink their tentacles into Skype. However, a future release might be better, but it probably won’t reacquire the level of usability and stability that it once had before Microsoft’s intervention.

We will see.

After Reinstall, Watching P2P Work in World of Warcraft

I like to reinstall my OS every few months to keep things tidy and fully functional on my MacBook 5,1. In a typical nuke-and-pave operation, I format my hard drive and then install the OS with most customizable options unchecked to save space. Then, I configure the firewall and other security features before installing all updates. Following that, I begin installing applications that I regularly use (iPhoto, Microsoft Office 2011, Seashore, VLC, and World of Warcraft). Next, I update any of those applications that have newer versions available (Service Pack 1 for Office 2011, and several GBs of new content for World of Warcraft–more on this later). I copy back my backed up files back to the MacBook’s internal hard drive, and point iTunes to my external media storage space (due to iPhone and iPad backups and my addiction to iTunes U, I cannot keep the iTunes media folder on my MacBook’s internal SSD, or solid state drive).

During the reinstallation process this time, I took a look at how World of Warcraft updates itself. I knew that it uses P2P (peer-to-peer) technology to distribute software updates from Blizzard to users and then between users themselves (see above). This method reduces Blizzard’s networking overhead and cost, because users can help one another update their software without any user intervention thanks to the updating mechanisms built into Blizzard’s video game. What I find particularly cool about Blizzard’s implementation of P2P, something already well established in the opensource software crowd, is that P2P is not something that is inherently bad. As some folks from the RIAA or MPAA might assert, P2P is solely a means of distributing illegally copied files between computer users. However, the technology of peer-to-peer file sharing and software distribution is not inherently meant to evade paying for software. Instead, it is a novel means of distributing files and networking resources (e.g., Tor) between P2P users. It turns the old networking, top-down model on its head. With P2P, the network spreads out rather than simply from a single point of distribution outward. For businesses like Blizzard, this helps reduce their costs for an otherwise large downstream of data to users like me who reinstall their programs regularly. For users, this allows for the easy updating of software that is more dependent upon their own Internet pipe and its size for the incoming stream of data from many users (see below).

I have intentionally blurred the IP addresses and Blizzard IDs of the users within the P2P network who were helping me update my software, but you can see that each line above represents another computer user who is streaming tiny bits of the rather large 3.85 GB of updates for World of Warcraft’s latest installment, Cataclysm. As these files are downloaded, the World of Warcraft updating software on my computer pieces everything back together and verifies with a hash tag that the downloaded software is legitimate (i.e., not compromised with bad data or a virus).

Time Warner’s Road Runner Internet service in Northeast Ohio, at least in Kent, is anything but road runner-fast. So, I did have to stop the transfer during the evening so that Y could use the Internet, too. I did not find a way to throttle the P2P updating feature from within the World of Warcraft software. When we went to bed last night, I started the updater again, and it was done when I woke up this morning.

P2P is not all bad, and there are certainly good uses for it. I think it was a wise decision on Blizzard’s part to incorporate it into World of Warcraft. Will other companies like Microsoft or Apple add this to their OS updates? It is hard to say, because I believe that security is the one concern about distributing software in this manner. When the software is released into the wild for P2P distribution, a vulnerability could be found and exploited.

Issues of Apple App Store Digital Distribution of Mac OS X 10.7 Lion

According to AppleInsider on their forums [Apple to release Mac OS X Lion through Mac App Store – sources – AppleInsider], Apple plans to move to a digital distribution model for the upcoming Mac OS X 10.7 codenamed Lion.

Apple’s App Store for iPhone, iPad, and iPod and now the App Store for Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard are the culmination of something Larry Ellison advocated way back in the 1990s. He said in effect why are bits boxed? He argued that bits should be carried through the network to computers rather than carried on media like CDs or DVDs. Apple seems to be further shifting to this model with this rumored distribution model for the next operating system.

I am not so sure how much I like this idea for the operating system. For distributing applications, I think that digital distribution is great. Unfortunately, more ISPs are wrongly implementing download caps. Additionally, it will increase the time for reinstallation for those of us who like to reinstall the OS every so often to maintain a clean computer workspace.

CmdrTaco on Slashdot commented on this change by writing, “A lot of questions surrounding this related to the ability to make bootable disks. And also, why don’t they just use apt-get? I gotta admit: it makes me nervous getting my OS from an App Store — which is strange considering how many kernels I’ve downloaded, built and booted over the years” [from here]. I have to agree with him that there is much that we do already to get software online–including OS kernels for Linux (Ubuntu in my case). I suppose the big difference is that with open source software, the bits aren’t controlled by a corporate overload. In Apple’s case, they will control access to those bits. If they follow their current model for third party software in their App Store, they will allow you to re-download software as many times as you want while you are logged into your account. Unfortunately, they will ultimately hold the keys to the kingdom and those policies could change.

I will write about cloud computing and cloud storage in a future post, but I will say now that I believe these issues of digital distribution and personal file storage in the cloud are interrelated. Both depend on access to the network and access to files stored “out there” in the cloud. I am a proponent of personal, local control of my files and the software that I license.

More Mac OS X Resource Savings: Disable AirPort Base Station Agent

I peeked at the running apps on my MacBook using the /Applications/Utilities/Activity Monitor application, and I wondered about the AirPort Base Station Agent. I haven’t had an Airport Base Station since I lived in Atlanta, so I certainly didn’t want another background daemon running for a product that I don’t use. Following a quick Google search, I found this helpful how-to: Disable AirPort Base Station Agent. According to OSXDaily, you can permanently disable this background program by going into /Applications/Utilities/Airport Utility, click on Airport Utility menu > Preferences, and uncheck all options. Then, quit Airport Utility. Thereafter, you shouldn’t see the AirPort Base Station Agent running in the background. This gives you a very small resource savings.