Good article on Apple’s MobileMe service.

Apple has finally assembled a set of features for its hosted MobileMe service that makes it worth its subscription fee for the right user. As a critic of the service in the past, I find myself with naught but praise these days.

The purple Ws denote using the web interface, the red Xs denotes using Webdav disk or other method to access documents on iDisk.

Notice there’s one component I choose to keep consistent across every item: calendars. It’s amazing that any change made on any of the 10 items will show up on the others in just a minute or two. Yes, it “just works”.

Tying this all together was little more than visiting a system preference on the Macs, logging into MobileMe, and checking a few boxes. On the iPhone it’s pretty much the same, and on the PC there’s a MobileMe control panel to install and use. You set, then forget, it just keeps in sync after that; I never have to think about it.

I’m not even using every sync feature. If I wanted, I could sync Dashboard widgets and Preferences across the Macs. I don’t do so only because the varying screen sizes means I use different widgets and prefs on these machines.

Further, there are other features I use not listed on the chart, like the excellent “Find my iPhone”, and the ability to wipe data off a device. I have these features enabled on all four mobile devices. It’s great.

People balk at MobileMe because they claim Google or Yahoo or Microsoft provide email, contacts and calendars for free. True, but MobileMe does so using powerful native apps on Macs and the iPhone, and is so much more than just email anyway.

Bottom line is I’d have to collect numerous third-party apps (e.g., mail, drop box, Google sync, etc.) to try to get all the above items in sync, and they still wouldn’t cover all the bases, nor be anywhere near as easy to administer. I consider MobileMe a bargain, and can’t imagine my computing/mobile life without it.

Posted via email from The Small Wave.

This isn’t copying. It’s identity theft.

I honestly don’t know how the people responsible can look at themselves in the mirror each morning. Surely there are other ways to get into retail without copying every detail from the people you’re constantly accused of copying in the first place.

Nice article on the Microsoft stores.

Posted via web from The Small Wave.

According to one leading security research lab, Windows 7 is vulnerable to an astonishing 8 out of 10 viruses it was exposed to during testing.

(via itpro.co.uk)

The author questions the test because no anti-virus software was installed, and new viruses were used to test the exposure. He seemed to think this might not be fair, but I strongly disagree.

This was the perfect way to test Microsoft’s claims that Windows 7 was über secure, hard to crack, etc. They’ve been bragging about security for Vista and Windows 7 for years, yet no one has done the obvious: test them on their own.

It should be obvious that anti-virus software masks the underlying operating system’s vulnerabilities. Such a test only shows how good the AV software — not the OS — is at protecting a PC.

What Sophos’ test proves is that MS was full of it regarding the security of Windows 7; that in point of fact an anti-virus solution is absolutely required to secure your system, because the OS itself is as vulnerable as ever.

Run the same test with a BSD, Linux, Mac, or other *nix system and they’ll kick Windows 7’s ass, and with no third-party solution as a band-aid. That’s because they’re already secure, thank you.

Posted via web from The Small Wave.

While the taskbar in Windows 7 is huge improvement over the old one, it’s incredibly weak compared to Apple’s dock. The biggest disappointment to me is that you can’t put folders there, or at least you can’t drag them there.

As it turns out, there’s a process you can use to get a folder on the taskbar, and I did so for some of my common ones. Once you do it a couple times, it’s a pretty simple process, though it’s silly to have to go through such hoops.

Unfortunately, all you can do once the folder is there is click on it to open the folder. That’s it. You cannot see what’s inside via stacks or hierarchical views like on a Mac. You cannot navigate the directory like on a Mac. You cannot spring-load the folder like on a Mac. You cannot launch or view anything from the folder like on a Mac. Bottom line is having a folder on the taskbar saves me one click, and that’s all.

Still, for common folders I’ll take what I can get. Especially since, for all the bragging on Microsoft’s part, Windows 7 still requires too many clicks.

Finally, here’s a quick tip: For a custom look change the shortcut’s icon before you pin it to the taskbar. The file imageres.dll in the System32 directory contains a number of nice icons from which to choose.

Noticed it available, upgraded from 2.0 and downloaded it online ($40). Took about 15 minutes to download.

Installed in less than 10 minutes.

Hey, the screen doesn’t do screwy things when I boot up Windows 7 any more.

Noticed that the VMWare Tools did not update on their own, so I updated them (took a couple minutes and a reboot).

Picked an Aero theme in Windows 7 and, voila!, I now have Aero on a virtual machine.

Nothing else to report but I’ve been running it just a short time. It was a very quick upgrade for such a major release. I thought it might need to mess with my VM files (I run XP Pro and Windows 7 RC), but no.

So far, an impressive and completely painless upgrade process.

Posted via email from The Small Wave.

To put the total in perspective, more new customers came to AT&T for the iPhone than the total number of new subscribers gained by Verizon with all handsets during the September quarter.

Amazing stat.

Verizon says they’d obviously “be interested” in the iPhone, since they want to “broaden the base of choice” for their customers. Where was all this desire to broaden choice when they were clamping down on hardware, not allowing WiFi, disabling Bluetooth, etc.?

Now that the iPhone is kicking their ass they’re all about “choice”? Spare me, please.

Posted via web from The Small Wave.

I sent a series of tweets recently inspired by two things:

Below are the the tweets:

• Dear WSJ and tech pundits: You can’t get a MacBook-equivalent PC for a lot less money; you only get a lesser one.
• I’m sick of these low-voltage 1.3 GHz no-power laptops being treated as MacBook equivalents. It’s BS.
• I’m sick of PC laptop starting prices of ~$650 when they use old or weak processors, old WiFi, have no Bluetooth, etc.
• Closest is an HP Dv3t configured similar 2 MacBook @ $900 with lots of HP giveaways. Nice, but not a lot less $$.
• The HP has more drive space and RAM. The MacBook has better battery, trackpad, smaller, lighter, unibody.
• My point is when you’re within $100 on two laptops, take your pick, but the cheaper one is hardly a no-brainer.
• Oh, and Dell XPS 13 and Lenovo models comparable to MacBook are priced higher.
• Summary: Go thru PC makers’ lengthy BTO process; see what you really get b4 claiming a MacBook for a lot less.

The summary nails it. As you go through all the BTO screens for so many models, you find where each promising PC either falls off the list (e.g., no Core 2 Duo processors, no LED screen), or the price keeps adding up as you configure it like a MacBook.

Think about this: What would a MacBook cost if Apple used an older Intel processor with just 2MB cache (or a low-voltage Centrino or Atom processor), slower DDR2 800MHz memory, Intel graphics, WiFi 802.11 b/g (not “n”), no Bluetooth, a weak battery, a tray CD drive, etc.? That’s exactly what PC makers do to create the low-end machines they (and a willing press) love to tout so much. And don’t even get me started on the big, heavy, lumbering beasts touted for having 15″ screens even though they have the resolution of a 13″.

Regarding the HP mentioned above, CNET configured one that was the same price as a MacBook. Theirs had a slower CPU, but like mine had more hard drive and RAM. They didn’t even list the MacBook’s great 7-hour battery, incredible glass trackpad, or unibody construction as advantages. Yet for the same amount of money HP didn’t include any of those things. In other words, CNET undersold the MacBook even as they acknowledged getting a PC close to it requires spending similar money!

I’m not blasting the PC makers. It’s a cutthroat industry for them; they need to make dirt cheap machines because they have to advertise dirt cheap prices. But one thing is crystal clear: if you don’t use yesterday’s technology, or drop features, or skimp on the battery, etc., it costs money. There is no MacBook-like PC for $700.

I wouldn’t care as much about this if a buyer knew what he was getting. But given the current tech reporting a lot of buyers think they’re getting a “MacBook” for much less money, and that’s pure, unadulterated crap. I’m disappointed the tech pundits haven’t seen the same trends I have and called it what it is.

Meanwhile, what I’ve learned from this exercise is simple: if your budget won’t allow a ~$1K machine, skip the cheap laptop crap and go straight to a netbook. Yes, they also use weak processors, low-cost components, etc., but at least they’re priced like it. Further, they’re smaller and lighter than a laptop, so they have a tangible advantage cheap laptops don’t.

Posted via email from The Small Wave.

So while Windows 7 may not right all of Vista’s wrongs, it is absolutely superior to its predecessor. It has three years of improvements, so it can’t help but be better. But if you hated Vista’s UI, you’re going to hate Windows 7’s. Worse, in fact, because 7 forces you to use the new Start menu and taskbar, with no possibility of reverting to the old behaviour. If your applications didn’t work in Vista, they almost certainly won’t work in 7. Sure, 7 has some virtualization tools to help, but this was always possible in Vista too. If you felt Vista was too big and too slow, well, 7 isn’t going to provide much joy there, either. Marginal improvements, perhaps, but nothing more.

The above quote, from the closing summary, sure doesn’t sound impressive. Still, the entire review (it’s long and detailed) is positive overall.

The reviewer thinks Vista got a bad rap. Even though he agrees Windows 7 is actually “Vista R2″, he likes it a lot.

Posted via web from The Small Wave.

…a lithograph of the Mona Lisa is never going to be worth more than the original even if the lithograph is nominally  ”better” because it uses archival quality pigments and has brighter colors. People will always value the real thing more than a high quality copy.

Interesting argument by Chris Seibold that claims the iPhone has stifled innovation because competitors are focusing only on making a knock-off, not on innovating to make something better. This isn’t the iPhone’s or Apple’s fault, and Seibold doesn’t say it is, but there’s some merit to his overall point.

Look at the competition’s ads aimed at the iPhone. They’d have you believe their “innovation” is, for example, using a hardware keyboard. Yet a hardware keyboard runs counter to a hand-held touch device. I wonder how many are used not because it’s a Good Thing, but because they can’t wait for a decent software keyboard to be completed before shipping the product. The Palm Pre sure feels like this.

For another example, look at Android’s fragmenting market of phones with different screens, hardware keyboards, software keyboards, varying UI experiences from handset makers, etc. Google doesn’t have the power (or desire) to prevent this, so it’s touted as a “feature” of the platform being “open”. Yet a fragmented market will limit Android’s overall appeal and success. See Windows Mobile for an example of that. Millions of WinMo units sold, but all so different there’s no UI consistency, and no cohesive entity — like iTunes and the App Store — to make a complete system that breeds customer satisfaction, loyalty, and a disincentive to go elsewhere.

In short, the only “innovation” from iPhone competitors so far has been to copy as much as they can, and then spin what they couldn’t copy as a “feature”.

Posted via web from The Small Wave.

Apple’s incredible turnaround since acquiring NeXT (and Steve Jobs) 12 years ago is well known. Apple’s been strong for over a decade, with exceptional growth far ahead of the industry, especially the last five years.

When every quarter seems to set a new sales record, even amidst a glum economy, it’s easy to become a bit jaded about the whole thing. I mean, ho hum, a few million more Macs, another 10 million iPods, and that new phone thing seems to be doing splendidly.

So let’s put some of this into perspective. The above slide is from Steve Jobs’ talk at Macworld 1997 in Boston. It’s the slide used when discussing “The Problem” at Apple. Put simply, sales in ‘95 were $11.1B, in ‘96 $9.5B, and in ‘97 (estimated) $7B. Going rapidly downhill, Apple was bleeding money.

Fast forward to Apple’s recent Q4 ‘09 results. Sales were $9.87B. That blows the doors off ‘97 and handily beats ‘96. Think about it; Apple bested these entire years’ sales in just one quarter. And it wasn’t even a holiday quarter.

But that’s not all. Apple reports sales with one arm tied behind its back. It doesn’t recognize all iPhone revenue immediately, instead spreading it out over two years due to specific accounting requirements. Those requirements are changing, however, and without them the adjusted figure for Q4 is $12.25B, which even blows ‘95 away.

Turnaround, indeed.

Posted via email from The Small Wave.

iDon’t have 85,000+ apps.

Posted via email from The Small Wave.

Perhaps you’ve seen the Verizon ads spoofing Apple’s iPhone commercials with the tagline “there’s a map for that.” Or maybe you’ve read one of the million posts that started the night they debuted. Using that tagline, while showing coverage maps for Verizon and AT&T, Verizon could kill two birds with one stone: attack AT&T while digging at the iPhone.

It’s not a bad tack when you consider the iPhone is gaining ground at a phenomenal rate, even in the face of Verizon’s many 2-for-1 Blackberry giveaways. Frankly, they needed an ad not just against AT&T, but the iPhone as well.

Still, it won’t work no matter how many pundits applaud the ads. You see, there are two maps Verizon doesn’t bother to mention.

Map #1: AT&T iPhone WiFi Hotspots

Above is the map of available AT&T WiFi hotspots. These provide free WiFi access to iPhone users, the device even logs you in automatically when you’re in range.

This is a great smartphone advantage from AT&T because:

Available at airports, Starbucks, Barnes & Noble, and many other places, I make use of AT&T wireless with my iPhone every single day. It’s a huge value-add to AT&T’s smartphone equation.

Good luck finding Verizon WiFi hotspots for your smartphone. if the phone’s on WiFi it’s not on their network, and they don’t want it off their network. Watch VCAST videos, buy (cheesy) ringtones, buy (crappy) apps, etc. from their network. Heck, it’s hard enough even getting a phone from Verizon that has WiFi; they’d rather you not use it even in your home.

Map #2: Verizon iPhone Coverage Area

Above is the map showing Verizon’s coverage area for the iPhone.

No wonder Verizon wants you to select a network first, then a phone. After reviewing the wannabe and knock-off smartphones they offer, most people would choose an iPhone, which Verizon can’t provide. So instead Verizon says “Just believe our network ads and go with us, then select one of our inferior devices, never leave our network, and let us nickel-and-dime you with charges.”

Compare devices, people. It matters. If you fall for Verizon’s line, then later realize you want out, too bad; there isn’t an app for that.

Posted via email from The Small Wave.

On the other hand, Microsoft inherited the Sidekick platform when it purchased Danger. The software giant will launch its own cloud-based OS, Windows Azure, next month. Windows Azure and Microsoft’s other online services are based on a completely different infrastructure than is T-Mobile Sidekick.

Fast work at damage control on the Windows IT Pro site.

Thurrott points out that the “relative number of affected users is low”, and also that Microsoft bought the Sidekick platform — presumably to imply it’s not really their fault. Then, he quickly distances the failed Microsoft infrastructure from an upcoming Microsoft infrastructure that hasn’t failed (yet). Smooth.

Inherited or not, the Sidekick platform ran for years with no issues, and the data was in Microsoft’s charge to protect. Some say they failed to do that. In any case, when you buy a platform it’s your baby, so this is a Microsoft’s screw up no matter how you look at it. Anyone who wouldn’t be a bit more cautious about Azure now isn’t thinking clearly.

Posted via web from The Small Wave.

Posted via web from The Small Wave.

UPDATE: Kudos to reader Jon T. of Cardiff, Wales, for digging up this quote from Mossberg’s review of Vista:

“After months of testing Vista on multiple computers, new and old, I believe it is the best version of Windows that Microsoft has produced.” — Wall Street Journal, Jan. 18, 2007

“After using pre-release versions of Windows 7 for nine months, and intensively testing the final version for the past month on many different machines, I believe it is the best version of Windows Microsoft has produced.” — Wall Street Journal, Oct. 8, 2009

An interesting addendum to CNN’s article on what’s wrong with Windows 7. The entire article is worth reading.

Much has been made of Mossberg’s review — including some over-exuberant article headlines — yet he still believes Mac OS X has the edge. The thrust of his review is that Windows 7 is an improvement over Vista. Big deal, we already expected that.

Posted via web from The Small Wave.