Hopefully Not Stupid
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
Windows Vista: which version is right for you, and which other version will you end up with?
I am a member of that "Exploring Windows" list Microsoft maintains in order to advertise at clueless computer users. (This can readily be deduced by looking at the content of the list.) I'm a member because I haven't gotten around to unsubscribe.
But then, why would I unsubscribe, when periodically I get a message like this?
The message says....
Which version of Windows Vista is right for you?
Hoo boy.
It only became known that there were going to be multiple versions less than a month ago, and already they're pushing out marketing messages to the clueless legions. I'm by no means a Microsoft fan, but this business over Vista strikes me as startlingly awful. But for those reasons, continue reading.
People use computers for an unimaginable variety of work and leisure activities. To fit this wide range of uses, Windows Vista will be broadly available in five versions (http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=4628420):
Of course they use computers for lots of things, that's why they're called general-purpose computing machines. To offer customized versions of Windows for each use isn't empowering, at best it's stingy since they don't want to give away all features for one purchase price, and means they'll end up selling extra copies, as users buy weaker versions, find out there's features in the more costly versions they need/really want, and have to schlepp back out to the software store to shell out again. "What's that?" the clerk will say, "You want to return an old software purchase? MWA-ha-ha! Guards, seize him!"
I cannot rightfully imagine why Microsoft would do something like this if they were not expecting at least a sizable number of computer users to do something like that.
For Home:
Windows Vista Home Premium (http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=4628421): Goes beyond basic tasks and helps you get more done around the house while more fully enjoying your digital entertainment.
The middle-ground. People with prior Microsoft experience (like those screwed by the Home/Professional difference) will probably default to this. According to their site (at the very URL listed above), this will be the cheapest version that actually includes their new Aero interface. It also has the options for making your own DVDs (DRM permitting) and it "provides new ways for you to enjoy your music, photos, and DVD movies", assuming the RIAA, MPAA and I assume professional photographers of America allow it.
Windows Vista Ultimate: Includes the full set of business, mobility, and home entertainment features for those who use their PCs at work, at home, and on the road.
Will probably contain some gaming acceleration tweaks that games will quickly come to rely upon. Will have the fewest crippled features.
Windows Vista Home Basic: Increases reliability, security, and ease of use for entry-level computers and basic tasks such as writing e-mail and surfing the Web.
The version that will be bundled with low-end computers. That's the rub, the true implications of this plan. That copy of Windows you get with one of those $500 machines at Wal-Mart, you may not realize, actually accounts for a sizable percentage of the cost of that machine. It'll lower the cost of the initial package, but to do the things you really want with the machine, you'll end up having to shell out for the big thing anyway. That's called a hidden cost folks, and by paying it, you'll ultimately be shelling out for Windows twice, once for the basic version and one for the super deluxe XTREEM version. Those who won't will be reduced to second-class citizens.
Anyone want to place any bets as to whether the next version of Windows will go back to offering one Home and one Business version, and in the ad copy for it brag about how simple it is Microsoft is making it for customers?
I am a member of that "Exploring Windows" list Microsoft maintains in order to advertise at clueless computer users. (This can readily be deduced by looking at the content of the list.) I'm a member because I haven't gotten around to unsubscribe.
But then, why would I unsubscribe, when periodically I get a message like this?
The message says....
Which version of Windows Vista is right for you?
Hoo boy.
It only became known that there were going to be multiple versions less than a month ago, and already they're pushing out marketing messages to the clueless legions. I'm by no means a Microsoft fan, but this business over Vista strikes me as startlingly awful. But for those reasons, continue reading.
People use computers for an unimaginable variety of work and leisure activities. To fit this wide range of uses, Windows Vista will be broadly available in five versions (http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=4628420):
Of course they use computers for lots of things, that's why they're called general-purpose computing machines. To offer customized versions of Windows for each use isn't empowering, at best it's stingy since they don't want to give away all features for one purchase price, and means they'll end up selling extra copies, as users buy weaker versions, find out there's features in the more costly versions they need/really want, and have to schlepp back out to the software store to shell out again. "What's that?" the clerk will say, "You want to return an old software purchase? MWA-ha-ha! Guards, seize him!"
I cannot rightfully imagine why Microsoft would do something like this if they were not expecting at least a sizable number of computer users to do something like that.
For Home:
Windows Vista Home Premium (http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=4628421): Goes beyond basic tasks and helps you get more done around the house while more fully enjoying your digital entertainment.
The middle-ground. People with prior Microsoft experience (like those screwed by the Home/Professional difference) will probably default to this. According to their site (at the very URL listed above), this will be the cheapest version that actually includes their new Aero interface. It also has the options for making your own DVDs (DRM permitting) and it "provides new ways for you to enjoy your music, photos, and DVD movies", assuming the RIAA, MPAA and I assume professional photographers of America allow it.
Windows Vista Ultimate
Will probably contain some gaming acceleration tweaks that games will quickly come to rely upon. Will have the fewest crippled features.
Windows Vista Home Basic
The version that will be bundled with low-end computers. That's the rub, the true implications of this plan. That copy of Windows you get with one of those $500 machines at Wal-Mart, you may not realize, actually accounts for a sizable percentage of the cost of that machine. It'll lower the cost of the initial package, but to do the things you really want with the machine, you'll end up having to shell out for the big thing anyway. That's called a hidden cost folks, and by paying it, you'll ultimately be shelling out for Windows twice, once for the basic version and one for the super deluxe XTREEM version. Those who won't will be reduced to second-class citizens.
Anyone want to place any bets as to whether the next version of Windows will go back to offering one Home and one Business version, and in the ad copy for it brag about how simple it is Microsoft is making it for customers?
Sunday, March 05, 2006
Video Games: Amazing Ouendan skills
My last post, which was meant to be a criticism of cell phone calling plans and ended up looking like an advertisement for them, has made me a little wary of Google's Blog Comments plugin for Blogger, but I'm giving it another try.
Osu! Tatakae! Ouendan! is an insanely catchy music game for the DS from Japan that we just *might* someday get a US release of. In it, the players must tap numbered circles on the touch screen in order in the rhythm of a song. Word is the game is incredibly demanding, as the linked-to video should indicate.It's also one of the cooler pieces of game music I've heard. Why don't we get things this cool in the US? Sure there's Katamari, but beyond that it seems like an unending stream of sports games and (ugh) Tom Clancy.See more at Silicon Era....
Thursday, February 16, 2006
Families talk free and get up to 5 free Samsung x495 phones
Ah, long time no see guys....
Here , T-Mobile hawks their "unlimited messaging for families plan," illustrating once more the reason why I have no cell phone or text messenger or service like that: they're all priced at extortionate rates, with the only exceptions being plans that all seem to carry some hidden "gotcha" designed to screw you over if you fail to invoke the proper incantations.
And whose idea was it anyway, to charge for sending per text message, anyway? How much money does it really cost them to ship a few bites of ASCII wirelesly? Would they charge 12.5% more to send an eighth bit?Wednesday, August 31, 2005
Artwork: Movie Club flyer
Something I've done to promote a film club we're starting here at GSU. Used Corel Painter's charcoal tools to both create the black background and the white foreground elements. The eraser tool created the solid-edged fingers in front of the projector. I used CorelDraw to produce guidelines to help me keep the perspective straight.
The expression on the guy's face I think works really well, though it reminds me uncomfortably of the kid from Paranoia Agent, or maybe an over-mischevious Ernie.
Something I've done to promote a film club we're starting here at GSU. Used Corel Painter's charcoal tools to both create the black background and the white foreground elements. The eraser tool created the solid-edged fingers in front of the projector. I used CorelDraw to produce guidelines to help me keep the perspective straight.
The expression on the guy's face I think works really well, though it reminds me uncomfortably of the kid from Paranoia Agent, or maybe an over-mischevious Ernie.
Thursday, August 18, 2005
Artwork from Super Mario Strikers
Funky, graffitiesque artwork of the Mario characters for an upcoming Mario soccer game. Including the coolest official corporate illustrations of both Mario and Wario in a long while, as well as the hottest drawing of Peach ever.
Planet GameCube Game Art: Super Mario Strikers
Funky, graffitiesque artwork of the Mario characters for an upcoming Mario soccer game. Including the coolest official corporate illustrations of both Mario and Wario in a long while, as well as the hottest drawing of Peach ever.
Planet GameCube Game Art: Super Mario Strikers
Friday, June 24, 2005
My response to a Johnny Isakson form letter about the flag-burning amendment
Johnny Isakson, one of my state's two senators, has a form on hisa website that, if filled out, eventually results in a response to someone at "senator@isakson.senate.gov", although that address doesn't work for replies. It's probably written by staffers, and may even be a form letter (although I've gotten two responses now with moderately different content), but that doesn't stop me from wanting to respond to the message.
I really hate getting automated, or employee-sourced, message in response to my concerns, especially when the person I'm writing to is a co-sponsor of something so wrong-headed as the flag burning amendment.
Since my response to his message bounced, because I spent so long writing it and don't want it to vanish into the ether, and to serve as a record of the reasoning being used in favor of that damnable amendment, I'm going to post my response here. I doubt he'll ever see it, but maybe it won't go to waste this way.
> The American flag is a national treasure, and is one of our
> greatest symbols of nationhood and national unity.
I have no idea if a straight response this way will actually get read
by anyone, but it seems a lot less annoying (for myself and whoever
reads these things) to try to do a straight reply instead of
continuing to direct my responses through the web form and breaking up
the conversation, while also losing track of my own messages.
It is my considered opinion that ultimately, while flags have
important symbolic value, they are, in the end, symbols, and that
those who are popularly described as "dying for the flag" are more
accurately dying for the nation for which it stands. But the nation
is not the flag; the logical error committed there, frequently
committed these days, is taking the representation of a thing as the
thing itself.
> I believe desecrating
> the flag dishonors the sacrifices of those who served this Nation and
> continue to defend us all.
The word "descrating" is a loaded term, and has meant different things
throughout history. Did you know that there's already laws on the
books meant to protect the flag? They forbid using it as, for
example, part of an article of clothing. It dates back to a time when
people were concerned about commercial exploitaton of the flag -- a
cause I could get behind, considering how much false patriotism
centers around prominent flag display.
But I consider passing spurious amendments to "protect" a symbol to
be, at best, misguided. You cannot harm a symbol by doing anything to
one representation of it -- there will always be more flags. You can
harm that symbol, however, by harming the thing it represents -- and
one of the most powerful things we have in the U.S. is freedom of
speech. While I would never burn a flag myself, as the cliche goes, I
would do everything in my power to protect someone else's right to do
so.
The whole flag burning amendment issue strikes me as nothing more as a
political fad, seriously harmful to freedom of speech, brought to the
service of empty patroitism.
> While the Supreme Court says protestors have the
> right to burn the flag, the Constitution says we have the right to amend it,
> and we must now do so to protect the flag.
The Consitution says you have, not the right (as congressmen you don't
have the right to do any damn thing, your post is in service to your
constituency and grants you *no* rights), but the duty to amend it
when the need arises. But there is hardly such a need at this moment
-- the figure being bandied about is that a grand total of ONE flag
burning incident occured in the United States last year. To sponsor a
Constitutional amendment to fix a problem that doesn't exist in order
to bring the power of the U.S. Government to bear against a
questionable issue -- honestly, the situation seems, how should I put
this... Schaivo-esque?
I do appreciate the personalized responses, even if they are, at best,
written by staffers. (But then again, you do have a job to do.) I get
the feeling that neither of us is going to convince the other here, so
I'll merely thank you for your time, and get down to the business of
spreading the word about your co-sponsorship of this lamentable
amendment.
Johnny Isakson, one of my state's two senators, has a form on hisa website that, if filled out, eventually results in a response to someone at "senator@isakson.senate.gov", although that address doesn't work for replies. It's probably written by staffers, and may even be a form letter (although I've gotten two responses now with moderately different content), but that doesn't stop me from wanting to respond to the message.
I really hate getting automated, or employee-sourced, message in response to my concerns, especially when the person I'm writing to is a co-sponsor of something so wrong-headed as the flag burning amendment.
Since my response to his message bounced, because I spent so long writing it and don't want it to vanish into the ether, and to serve as a record of the reasoning being used in favor of that damnable amendment, I'm going to post my response here. I doubt he'll ever see it, but maybe it won't go to waste this way.
> The American flag is a national treasure, and is one of our
> greatest symbols of nationhood and national unity.
I have no idea if a straight response this way will actually get read
by anyone, but it seems a lot less annoying (for myself and whoever
reads these things) to try to do a straight reply instead of
continuing to direct my responses through the web form and breaking up
the conversation, while also losing track of my own messages.
It is my considered opinion that ultimately, while flags have
important symbolic value, they are, in the end, symbols, and that
those who are popularly described as "dying for the flag" are more
accurately dying for the nation for which it stands. But the nation
is not the flag; the logical error committed there, frequently
committed these days, is taking the representation of a thing as the
thing itself.
> I believe desecrating
> the flag dishonors the sacrifices of those who served this Nation and
> continue to defend us all.
The word "descrating" is a loaded term, and has meant different things
throughout history. Did you know that there's already laws on the
books meant to protect the flag? They forbid using it as, for
example, part of an article of clothing. It dates back to a time when
people were concerned about commercial exploitaton of the flag -- a
cause I could get behind, considering how much false patriotism
centers around prominent flag display.
But I consider passing spurious amendments to "protect" a symbol to
be, at best, misguided. You cannot harm a symbol by doing anything to
one representation of it -- there will always be more flags. You can
harm that symbol, however, by harming the thing it represents -- and
one of the most powerful things we have in the U.S. is freedom of
speech. While I would never burn a flag myself, as the cliche goes, I
would do everything in my power to protect someone else's right to do
so.
The whole flag burning amendment issue strikes me as nothing more as a
political fad, seriously harmful to freedom of speech, brought to the
service of empty patroitism.
> While the Supreme Court says protestors have the
> right to burn the flag, the Constitution says we have the right to amend it,
> and we must now do so to protect the flag.
The Consitution says you have, not the right (as congressmen you don't
have the right to do any damn thing, your post is in service to your
constituency and grants you *no* rights), but the duty to amend it
when the need arises. But there is hardly such a need at this moment
-- the figure being bandied about is that a grand total of ONE flag
burning incident occured in the United States last year. To sponsor a
Constitutional amendment to fix a problem that doesn't exist in order
to bring the power of the U.S. Government to bear against a
questionable issue -- honestly, the situation seems, how should I put
this... Schaivo-esque?
I do appreciate the personalized responses, even if they are, at best,
written by staffers. (But then again, you do have a job to do.) I get
the feeling that neither of us is going to convince the other here, so
I'll merely thank you for your time, and get down to the business of
spreading the word about your co-sponsorship of this lamentable
amendment.
Thursday, June 16, 2005
Random Ideas, 6/16
1. Take the music to the song "Hotel California." Put it into a blank video file. Then splice into that file appropriate scenes from the movie Manos: The Hands of Fate, so as to make a music video for the song. Post it somewhere on the web. Watch the fun.
2. Also a video idea. Intercut between highlights (more likely, lowlights) from the
current session of Congress and President Bush press conferences (Schrivo, estate tax repeal, the Flag Burning amendment current winding its way through Congress), and scenes from a really over-the-top hillbilly gathering, complete with cousins kissing, pickup trucks tearing up dirt roads, unlovely people in deteriorating overalls with vehicles devoted to dead people & peeing Calvin decals, et cetera. Overlay the whole thing with "Arkansas Traveller" and "Turkey in the Straw."
3. Go to www.yakov.com and see aging, one-joke funnyman Yakov Smirnov try to ply his two-decade-old wares in Branson, Missouri, making his apparently prodigious living these days confirming the misbegotten beliefs of superiority held by the more rural, more regrettable portions of our nation. Try to make fun of it but quit halfway through when overcome by feeling of profound ennui, mixed with longstanding, now confirmed suspecion that one is merely raging against the ever-deepening tide of stupidity infesting the United States, then collapse weeping, spending night curled up inside bottle of cheap liquor. Later, try to get a description of the whole process published on McSweeney's.
1. Take the music to the song "Hotel California." Put it into a blank video file. Then splice into that file appropriate scenes from the movie Manos: The Hands of Fate, so as to make a music video for the song. Post it somewhere on the web. Watch the fun.
2. Also a video idea. Intercut between highlights (more likely, lowlights) from the
current session of Congress and President Bush press conferences (Schrivo, estate tax repeal, the Flag Burning amendment current winding its way through Congress), and scenes from a really over-the-top hillbilly gathering, complete with cousins kissing, pickup trucks tearing up dirt roads, unlovely people in deteriorating overalls with vehicles devoted to dead people & peeing Calvin decals, et cetera. Overlay the whole thing with "Arkansas Traveller" and "Turkey in the Straw."
3. Go to www.yakov.com and see aging, one-joke funnyman Yakov Smirnov try to ply his two-decade-old wares in Branson, Missouri, making his apparently prodigious living these days confirming the misbegotten beliefs of superiority held by the more rural, more regrettable portions of our nation. Try to make fun of it but quit halfway through when overcome by feeling of profound ennui, mixed with longstanding, now confirmed suspecion that one is merely raging against the ever-deepening tide of stupidity infesting the United States, then collapse weeping, spending night curled up inside bottle of cheap liquor. Later, try to get a description of the whole process published on McSweeney's.
