Favorite Tools For Anyone

Every once in a while, I run into a really great program that I find no one should do without. I have quite a few that I load on either a PC or Mac any time I feel I need to do a fresh install (never with a Mac really). So I thought I would share this with the rest of the world. Below are my top picks and why.

PEAZIP

This is a must-have tool for any Windows or Linux user. It compresses and opens just about any type of compressed file with relative ease. It can break a compressed file into separate various-sized files (think CD or DVD). It has shell commands so that you can right click on a file and do various things with a file dealing with compression. If all this sounds too technical, it's actually about the simplest program I've found, aside from Winzip, and it's completely free and very small.




CUTEFTP

If you're a web designer/developer like me, you'll definitely want a good FTP (file transfer protocol) program. I've used many. This windows-based program is not free, but super easy to use and extremely powerful. Schedule your file transfers to and from your website(s). Conduct secure transfers. Drag and drop files between local and remote directories. Preview thumbnails. Edit remote documents within CuteFTP. Create scripts and macros for hands-free work. Use live-syncing between mirrored directories. Schedule site backups. Resume transfers, utilize turbo transfer, and even ensure transfer integrity. Use the step-by-step wizards. Last, but not least, (and this is a BIG one), you can even log into multiple sites simultaneously!



CYBERDUCK

Yet another great FTP tool, but only for the Mac. It's also free :) This is a very simple, drag and drop FTP tool that does what it's supposed to do very well.



QUICKSILVER

This Mac-only application is extremely small, very fast, and provides a powerful way to get to any file or application on your Mac with a simple keystroke. It appears to index (un-noticably) each file and app as they are placed onto the drive. A short-cut key brings it up, type what you're looking for, and hit enter on this very accurate search tool. If it's first result isn't what you're looking for, it lists everything else it found, and you can simply scroll down and hit enter to execute it. It's much easier than Spotlight, which is already super powerful and simple. With the ability to use plug-ins, this tool does even more. And...it's free :)



ONENOTE

It's not often I applaud Microsoft for their applications. However, aside from Excel, OneNote has to be one of the best programs I've ever used. This application acts as a notebook. In fact, it's organized into Notebooks, Dividers, Pages, etc. Take a note on anything. Take a screen-clipping or draw a picture from within the program. Embed or link to audio, video, or other files. Print to a page in OneNote. Search not only text, but also video and audio (although I haven't tested the latter 2). You can even search text that is part of an image, as it appears that OneNote has a built-in OCR (optical character recognition) ability. For random notes or quick note-taking, notes are added to un-filed pages, which you can file later. Password protect notes. Perform calculations and implement tables or grids from within OneNote. Share notes or sync them with other Windows computers or people.



These are just a few of the major tools I wouldn't want to do without. I hope you benefit from these as much as I have.

League of Legends - An Example of Today's Game Industry Practices

Otherwise known as LoL, League of Legends is a game made by a startup company called Riot. The business is made of many individuals who are apparently quite experienced in various aspects of the industry, from programmers, to financial experts, to web designers, graphic designers, and more. League of Legends is a game that pits up to 5 players against another 5, each of which can choose one of around forty champions called Summoners. The game is free to download and play, but there is a pay model available for those who wish to have slightly different looking Summoners, or to gain experience to level up faster, etc. What is interesting is how this game is an example of how the game industry in general has (please excuse the term), bastardized their offerings.

Please allow me to offer my experience with this game. I have a level thirty account, the max level you can achieve. I did it solely through effort, no pay involved. That was a nice feature of this offering, in that I didn't have to pay to play. I've leveled faster than most (as I have a ton of gaming experience), even those who have payed to gain levels faster. I play about 10 or so Summoners well, and a few others decently. I have about fifty players on my buddy list, and I can easily find a game with many of them. Now, I'm not trying to talk myself up, but to say I know what I'm talking about with this game. I've been playing computer games, since I was a young lad, so I consider myself an expert.

Credibility having been established, I will now explain what I mean by the game industry "bastardizing" their offerings. Long ago, game companies would develop entertaining products that offered little in graphics and sound, but more than made up for what they lacked, in quality and entertainment value. Over the years, quality and entertainment value seem much less important than graphics and sound. Don't get me wrong, graphics and sound are crucial to the experience, but if the program crashes often, the controls are too hard to learn or too complex, or the game simply isn't fun, then what's the point?

This is where League of Legends comes in as a prime example. They offer the game free, likely due to the $8 million in funding they managed to procure. They make up for it being free by offering new costumes for your Summoners, experience boosts and more for actual money. This isn't a bad model, as they will gain popularity fast by offering it free. The problem is that just about every time they have to patch the software, it takes quite a long time for the servers to be brought back up, and most of the time Riot is giving its users estimated times when their servers will be up that they don't meet by a long-shot. Most of the patches appear ("on paper") to concentrate on fixing critical balancing issues between Summoners and features, game performance, etc. However, in my opinion, most of the patching seems to change the User Interface (UI) around, unnecessarily and concentrate on the graphics and sound more than actually fixing any real errors.

For example, they changed the game announcer's voice several times and they offer only two real maps to play on, despite promising more. When the Store was supposed to become active for people to pay for additional things for the game, they had to bump it's opening date twice to get it working and it didn't work well, even then. Some people who paid for things had trouble getting what they paid for to show up or work. Patching appears to cause more crashes every time I play, and the much-toted matchmaking system (which is supposed to balance out the teams' player makeups) doesn't work well either. I find myself on teams with very inexperienced players, which would be fine if the other team had a level thirty and other inexperienced players, but then we end up competing against a team of mostly very experienced players.

I can't complain much, as I play for free, and I'm glad I don't pay anything for the game. If I did, I would be livid by not being able to use the products I've paid for or by not being able to use them as intended. I see people constantly complaining on the forums about what's happening, while others simply insult them for their concerns. I look at it like having bought a car and it not working or not coming with tires. I would treat my customers better. Do I understand how hard it is to program a game like that? Yes. Do I understand that patching software for thousands of people can provide unexpected results? Yes. Was the product ready for launch at the end of it's beta phase? No, and I was a beta tester, since closed beta.

Behavior like this from game companies is fairly commonplace these days and very inexcusable. If I were asked to provide an example of a good game company that actually does provide quality products (with few hiccups), that have great graphics, sound, gameplay value, and controls, I would instantly say, "Blizzard." Considering some of the top people over at Riot come from Blizzard, makes me all the more unsympathetic to the problems they have.

Windows 7 Is Better, According to What Exactly?

I just read an article by Walter Mossberg at the Wall Street Journal, that frankly made me question the viability of his words. You can read the article here:

http://finance.yahoo.com/career-work/article/107925/a-windows-to-help-you-forget?mod=career-worklife_balance

I found this review of Windows 7 rather awkward. While Mossberg starts out saying that Win 7 is a worthwhile upgrade, he eventually makes the case that Win 7 is better than Vista (not hard to do) and probably not worthwhile enough for XP users to want to install. Perhaps he should have been more clear from the start, but most Vista users will likely want to upgrade to anything from what they have. When Vista was less than a year out, I saw what was coming...a landslide of people trying to upgrade to something that merely provided a better-looking user experience and promises of better security. If you're a Vista user, XP user, or any kind of Windows user, you already know that security patches galore are coming or available. Vista promised to be more secure and hackers proved it wrong. Is Win 7 likely to be any different, after all these years of Microsoft re-branding the same lemon?

In his article, Walt Mossberg states, "Windows 7 introduces real advances in organizing your programs and files, arranging your taskbar and desktop, and quickly viewing and launching the page or document you want, when you want it. It also has cool built-in touch-screen features." Is Microsoft still trying to fix things few are really asking for, when security and stability ought to be their #1 task? I can't tell you how many times in my career I've been approached by users, frustrated by the fact that the interface to their favorite Microsoft App (which tends to either be Excel or Word) has been changed by a new version and they can't find the thing they use most. Why not fix pagination in Word, which has never worked entirely well, since it's inception? Why not concentrate on TRULY making sure the program runs in it's on dedicated space, and stop blaming third party programs for the crashes?

Yet, as Mossberg writes, Microsoft made sure to spend time on Windows 7 to provide touch screen capabilities (what?...who has one of those?), something called Aero-Peek (which sounds strangely like the lesser-known capability of XP, known as the Quickbar), and jumplists (right-click an taskbar icon for recent documents, etc. OK that one sounds pretty useful). He mentions how you can, say, shake an application window and make the others hide. He talks about Windows 7 provided easier sharing tools.

I can already do all of these things with my XP machine and even make it look much like Vista, Windows 7, or just about anything I want. There are third party programs, like StrokeIt, or WindowBlinds, Fences, ObjectDock, etc. Stardock is a company that provides a ton of programs that make Windows much easier on the eye and to use. I remember when Win 98 and Win 2000 came out, already having better sharing capabilities. You can get programs that can assist with this far cheaper than doling out $120 for a Windows upgrade. Many are free.

Back to Mossberg's article, he continues, "It (Windows 7) removes a lot of clutter. And it mostly banishes Vista's main flaws -- sluggishness; incompatibility with third-party software and hardware; heavy hardware requirements; and constant, annoying security warnings." However, he also mentions, "If you have a standard PC, called a 32-bit PC, you'll need at least one gigabyte of memory, 16 gigabytes of free hard-disk space and a graphics system that can support Microsoft technologies called "DirectX 9 with WDDM 1.0." You'll also need a processor with a speed of at least one gigahertz. If you have a newer-style 64-bit PC, which can use more memory, you'll need at least two gigabytes of memory and 20 gigabytes of free hard disk space. In either case, you should double the minimum memory specification." How are those requirements not heavy? Most people only have 1-2Gb of memory, even on newer machines, so this means they would only have the minimum to run certain versions of Windows 7. In addition, I think it's too premature to say that third party software and hardware will work well with it. He's one guy, having run tests on 11 machines, all of which are major computer manufacturers that try to ensure their products run most things. Time will tell if his statement is true.

Another thing I found interesting is how he compares Windows 7 to Apple' Snow Leopard. He does say that Snow Leopard is slightly better in most aspects, but I don't think you can say that for what you get in Snow Leopard for $29 vs a $120 upgrade to something not much better is a worthwhile upgrade. Many people have told me that the only reason they wouldn't purchase an Apple computer is that it costs so much more. In fact, I have a colleague who recently purchased a pretty decent Dell laptop for $500. $500 vs $1400 or so is definitely cheaper. I asked him what came with it and, my having worked with PCs for 30 years or so, I knew what costs were coming. Maintenance, updates, crashes, hardware problems, time, software for security, productivity, leisure, maintenance, updates, crashes, more hardware problems, time. In the end, you'll spend more on that laptop than you likely will on the Mac.

I have both, and I have never had to fix my MacBook Pro or reinstall the OS in the last year and a half. It has actually frozen on me a couple of times, but a simple reboot and a little frustration later, I was back in business. In contrast, my Windows machine has had to be reinstalled twice, and crashes on almost a monthly basis. When I heard that Macs run Windows better than other PC's, I balked. I figured it was simply because the Windows was hardly being used and a newer installation. I've had it on my MacBook Pro for most of the time I've had the laptop. I don't use Windows on it as often as my main PC, sure...but it still runs much faster than my statistically more powerful desktop.

I hope Mossberg is listening, as I think the more qualified experts can tell you...don't upgrade to anything Microsoft, unless you have to. I've seen it's history over a long period of time. A lemon with chocolate chips in it is still a lemon.

Excuse Me, I Just Need to Make a Call

Is it just me, or is anyone else out there sick of being pushed cell phones that want to do everything? Last time I purchased a cell phone, all I wanted was something that could make calls easily and that I could hear, especially via speakerphone. Unfortunately, I had to pay a huge amount of money for the phone, because it has all those other features I never use.

We could reduce the amount of money spent on cell phones and contracts if providers would simply listen to what I hear others say, also. We just want to make a phone call. If I wanted to take a picture, I would get a camera...the cell phones just don't cut it either in quality or adjustment. Real cameras give you the ability to adjust shutter speed, light settings, delay, format, etc. I have to admit that there is software from onOne that is also offered via Apple's App Store and will allow you to adjust just those settings on your iPhone. Yet, I don't even care. I'm not trying to sound negative at all, but to say, can I just have the basic, good quality phone option, please?

I would rather spend as much as I do on these phones, whose biggest features I never use, and have that extra money go to better networks or better customer service. The basic, good quality phone that I managed to get some time ago, has pictures, video, music, and even TV? I can even text if I want. Do I use any of it? Not really. I want to hear the person on the other end more clearly and have them hear me. I want to be able to hear the device, in the car, without having to purchase and use yet another device (E.g. Bluetooth speaker). If any of these company's are watching, please please please give us a basic, good quality phone. No fluff. Either offer same price, where the money is put to good use, or price it lower to match the usefulness of the product and service.

Your Bandwidth Gone In a Flash

I've been looking at Adobe's efforts to put Flash on mobile devices for a while now (E.g. http://www.adobe.com/products/flashlite/ and http://www.adobe.com/mobile/). It's been slow going and adoption by mobile device makers and cell providers has also been long and drawn out. Yet, Adobe is making headlines recently, concerning their efforts to bring this dominant web media player to that beloved handheld of yours. I like Flash for certain things (playing music, videos, etc.), but I don't prefer it for most. What you'll find is that having it on your cell is not going to make you as happy as you think.

There's a reason this effort has taken so long. It's because Flash can be a huge bandwidth hog. Adobe has had to make something that has proven to be quite heavy on networks, lighter. Cell providers don't want to, and shouldn't have to, accommodate this, just so you can have animated icons and ads. Videos and music already play on their networks just fine. Even if you could get this thing to work adequately, it still isn't the same as having a movie saved on your handheld media player and playing from there, instead of over a network. That said, of course you can use Flash as a player for media that is local to the device. Eye-candy has a place in sales, after all.

Yet, I still don't see the need. I've been in IT for a long time. I generally know what I'm up against, even if I've never seen it before. I've learned to look past the sales pitches and client-facing corporate PR to get to the meat of things. I've seen way too many sites that use Flash and not only offer little significant features by this, but also take forever to load.

Here's a test. Look up web design awards on the net. Most are given to Flash-laden sites that anyone with an average machine would have to wait ages to bring up on screen. Do these sites deserve awards? Certainly from an artistic standpoint, etc., they do.

But I'm not here to debate about merits of web design...simply to say that Flash really ought to be used on music and video sites. Personal sites are fine too. But why bother with it just to say something that could be said much faster and easier and not create bandwidth bloat?

I like Flash for the aesthetics and some functionality, but I most certainly DO NOT want it on my handheld. Perhaps this is why Apple doesn't want it on the iPhone, either.

Snow Leopard - Benefits and Drawbacks

I bought the Snow Leopard upgrade today (first day of official release). In short, it's a really quick install and just as much of an improvement in the speed up of application and OS start times and shut downs. Yet, it's not without problems.

PRICE:
$29

INSTALLATION:
The installation was extremely easy. Simply insert the disk, ensure there is only one person logged in (main account or one with administrative rights) and run the install. It said it would take about 40 minutes, but it took slightly less. After a quick reboot (which was faster than normal), it greeted me with a slightly different background than that which came with Leopard.

PERFORMANCE:
Applications loaded much faster and behaved faster, as expected. After all, it's supposed to be a migration of the OS from 32-bit to 64-bit.

PROBLEMS:
I noticed the lighter colors looked even brighter than the already impressive display used to provide. However, green color saturation was off the chart. For example, I ran Cheetah3D, only to find that the previous renders I created that normally can be seen in the render manager had all disappeared (extremely unfortunate). After re-rendering a scene I had done before, I found it was overly saturated with green.

You can see the samples below. The first image is what the render should look like, and the second is the one done after Snow Leopard was installed.





As far as any other problems, I can't say, yet. If I find other things wrong, I'll update this article.

5 October 2009 - UPDATE
{
Relatively soon after I notified Dr. Wengenmayer about the problems I was having with Cheetah3D and Snow Leopard, he released an update that solved the colorization issue, along with some other problems. However, PLEASE SAVE YOUR CHEETAH3D CACHE FOLDER. That folder holds all of your renders. You don't want to lose those, now do you?

Another problem I found with Snow Leopard was the fact that my wireless Lexmark Inkjet X6570 drivers weren't working anymore. I had to find the wireless automation wizard install files on Lexmark's site and run those again to get it working.

Cyberduck FTP program also would not work. I used a beta version, until recently.

Inkscape has also ceased to load. I think I might know why, but I'll have to look into a bit more to be sure.
}

CONCLUSION:
Other than being 64-bit, none of the other enhancements of Snow Leopard are really useful or of interest to me. You can read up on Snow Leopard here. You can also read about the color issues from earlier postings from beta testers here.

Windows 7 - Initial Comments

I've been holding off on bothering to download this massive 2.4Gb pre-release. I will be testing both the 32 bit and 64 bit versions. I'm not holding my breath though. I've been using PCs with various OSs, on them for over 30 years. I just read a few reviews on Windows 7 pre-release, and it appears that Microsoft is still trying to dupe the world.

Now, in all fairness, this is a test version, but I found this text on the pre-release download site:

"# If you've installed Windows 7 Beta on your PC, you'll need to back up your data, and do a clean installation of the RC. Then you'll need to reinstall your programs and restore the files, settings, and other information you want to use for testing.

# While we consider this a stable and high-quality pre-release version of Windows, the RC is not the finished product. It could crash your computer or cause you to lose important files or information."

What I found rather hilarious is the fact that that last statement sounds a huge amount like their finished products over the years. They crash and lose your valuable information. Why else do you have so many backup software vendors and hardware solutions? Now, of course I'm not saying that you shouldn't back up your data for any OS, but hey...it rings so true in the case of Windows.

Having seen a review at http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/08/first-look-windows7, I found it quite laughable. Before reviewers compare Windows 7 to Mac OSX, they should actually use both. This reviewer stated how similar the taskbars between the two look, and they're no where close. Take a look:

WINDOWS 7 TASKBAR:


MAC OSX TASKBAR:


The reviewer continued, stating that memory management is better in Windows7. I've been hearing this since the inception of Windows. He states that Windows7 only puts applications you can see in the memory space, not the ones that are minimized. If this is indeed true, how does this work for applications that are supposed to be running in the background (E.g. virus scanners that provide always-on real-time.). Perhaps those programs will be left in their own memory space and only the ones that appear in the taskbar will be managed. Regardless, if this is true, it's at least a long-overdue move in the right direction. What I found, again, laughable is that OSX has no problem with this at all regardless of having multiple applications open and maximized or not.

The reviewer also talks highly of the backgrounds that come with Windows7 pre-release. It's a sad attempt at artistic vision. I bunch of cats, worms, toon doodles, and 3D faces that make it difficult to see your icons. They look much like I would expect from an artist in the 1980s. I guess it's not for me.

The other comments were about how you can have one Windows7 machine gets files and folders from another Windows7 machine on the same network. You can do that already. What did they add? Apparently, it can also get drivers for a device from another machine, such as a printer. Again, you can already do that (as in WindowsXP). It comes with a slew of updated drivers (more bloat in your OS than you'll ever need, which again, is already in earlier Windows releases dating back to 3.1

Also mentioned was the ability to stream media to your WiFi TV. How many people actually have these or can afford them? I bought an HP TV that does WiFi and I was HIGHLY unimpressed with its performance and how hard it was to get connected to the network (which is a function of my network, also). Let's not ignore the fact that Windows Media Center has been a half-baked solution for media fanatics in the past. Trust me, do yourself a favor and buy a non-OS specific media streaming solution, or at least, get an AppleTV. Most of these solutions cost between $150 and $300, and you won't need to fork out another $2k-$3k for a WiFi TV.

More to come...