In case you haven't heard. Amazon has MP3 downloads. DRM free, no download client required, just purchase the music and download it with your browser. It's not about paying for the music really. You can try the file sharing networks, but it can be hard to find the song you want and quality tends to vary, not to mention, if you get popped by the Metalicops. It could get ugly. If I figure my time is worth $60 an hour it only has to save me a minute of time to be worth the download charge. I really think Amazon has got it right, large selection, and I'm not locked to a single computer or device, I get decent quality MP3's fast download.
It will be interesting to see if the service flies with the recording companies. There is a note on the site about this being Beta. I wonder if there's some kind of digital signature in the MP3's so they can see how many of their purchased files wind up on P2P networks. In the mean time, I'm downloading like a madman and filling out my library. Enjoy.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Vista Again? Not so In Business
I haven't been doing a lot of travelling over the past couple of months, but that's fine with me. It's not so much fun to go places these days, with security, surly airline staff and the like. I read a story recently about a guy who was threatened with arrest when he tried to get some love for the laptop that he says airport security broke.
So I was reading about Vista again *smirk*. Their new service pack one that's supposed to have some performance improvements, really doesn't. It's really kind of funny. I do quite a bit of work with large companies, and not a single one has Vista installed. Most of them run XP on the desktop and Windows 2000 or Windows 2003 in the server room. It's not just because there are hardware costs associated, i.e. need more hardware, it's because of the risk of upgrading. These IT departments have been burned before by compatibility issues and server downtime, they're going on the "If it's not broke don't fix it" methodology, which, in my opinion, is not a bad one.
It's sad to see but in the Windows shops, the IT staff is constantly in an uproar about something. This failing, that breaking, etc. I've seen places where system failure were so frequent, they set up rooms of people that just watch the systems waiting for them to fail. When I go into a *nix shop. (That's Unix/Linux for the uninitiated). Although there are system failure, user support, etc. There isn't the, "Oh my god we've got a huge problem", feeling in the air. The engineers are engaged in creating and designing instead of plugging holes.
As a consultant I have a love hate relationship with Windows. It always takes me longer to do things with Windows than with any other OS I have worked with. It's good when you are charging by the hour, but bad whenever you are trying to get something done for yourself.
Things like copying files from one machine to another, or just downloading something from the Internet almost always takes me longer on a Windows machine. Most people see Windows on a desktop and it doesn't to all that bad of a job there, if you aren't too concerned about security. I see Windows on huge pieces of hardware dealing with large amounts of data. It's always fun to try to copy a large file across the network, after it prepares to copy for 20 or 30 minutes, it will start to copy, get part of the way through and die a horrible death. To be fair, this type of a scenario is usually caused by some 3rd party piece of resident anti-virus software, that corporation are forced to install if they want any semblance of security on their Windows servers.
I'll get off of my soap box again, but I will refer you to an article written by Juergen Haas which goes into some of the more technical details of making the choice between Windows vs. Unix.
So I was reading about Vista again *smirk*. Their new service pack one that's supposed to have some performance improvements, really doesn't. It's really kind of funny. I do quite a bit of work with large companies, and not a single one has Vista installed. Most of them run XP on the desktop and Windows 2000 or Windows 2003 in the server room. It's not just because there are hardware costs associated, i.e. need more hardware, it's because of the risk of upgrading. These IT departments have been burned before by compatibility issues and server downtime, they're going on the "If it's not broke don't fix it" methodology, which, in my opinion, is not a bad one.
It's sad to see but in the Windows shops, the IT staff is constantly in an uproar about something. This failing, that breaking, etc. I've seen places where system failure were so frequent, they set up rooms of people that just watch the systems waiting for them to fail. When I go into a *nix shop. (That's Unix/Linux for the uninitiated). Although there are system failure, user support, etc. There isn't the, "Oh my god we've got a huge problem", feeling in the air. The engineers are engaged in creating and designing instead of plugging holes.
As a consultant I have a love hate relationship with Windows. It always takes me longer to do things with Windows than with any other OS I have worked with. It's good when you are charging by the hour, but bad whenever you are trying to get something done for yourself.
Things like copying files from one machine to another, or just downloading something from the Internet almost always takes me longer on a Windows machine. Most people see Windows on a desktop and it doesn't to all that bad of a job there, if you aren't too concerned about security. I see Windows on huge pieces of hardware dealing with large amounts of data. It's always fun to try to copy a large file across the network, after it prepares to copy for 20 or 30 minutes, it will start to copy, get part of the way through and die a horrible death. To be fair, this type of a scenario is usually caused by some 3rd party piece of resident anti-virus software, that corporation are forced to install if they want any semblance of security on their Windows servers.
I'll get off of my soap box again, but I will refer you to an article written by Juergen Haas which goes into some of the more technical details of making the choice between Windows vs. Unix.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Team Fortress 2, Good FPS Fun
In my off time, I enjoy playing a game or two. Single players are OK, but when it comes to pure gaming satisfaction, multi-player games are the stuff. When you play against a computer there is always some pattern, that when figured out, enables easy wins. When playing against a human opponent, you never know what they'll do. It makes for a richer gaming experience, In my opinion, and there is a small visceral satisfaction in knowing there's someone on the other end of that missile you just fired going, "Dammit, he just shot me!".
I've been a big fan of the EA Battlefield series for some time and have been liking Battlefield 2142, but just found a new FPS (First Person Shooter) that has great gameplay, an abundance of servers and terrific player vs. player action. It's one of the only video games that plays just like it's trailers. With alot of games you watch the trailers get excited about it, then the game itself comes nowhere close to the hype of the trailer. With Team Fortress 2, the games plays like the trailer. You don't just blow people up, you blow the hell out of them. When using a flamethrower you don't just set people on fire, you burn them down!
I'm including a couple screenshots from some recent gameplay and be sure to check out the site at The Orange Box Site
These are shots of a couple of guys that got their just rewards after filling me full of lead. The game gives you the opportunity to take a screen shot of the avatar of the person that just killed you. Here are a couple
I've been a big fan of the EA Battlefield series for some time and have been liking Battlefield 2142, but just found a new FPS (First Person Shooter) that has great gameplay, an abundance of servers and terrific player vs. player action. It's one of the only video games that plays just like it's trailers. With alot of games you watch the trailers get excited about it, then the game itself comes nowhere close to the hype of the trailer. With Team Fortress 2, the games plays like the trailer. You don't just blow people up, you blow the hell out of them. When using a flamethrower you don't just set people on fire, you burn them down!
I'm including a couple screenshots from some recent gameplay and be sure to check out the site at The Orange Box Site
These are shots of a couple of guys that got their just rewards after filling me full of lead. The game gives you the opportunity to take a screen shot of the avatar of the person that just killed you. Here are a couple
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)