Walt-O-Matic

Apparently because I like John Clease’s comedic timing, cursing magicians, and canceled 80s comedies, that means I like Carl Sagan’s COSMOS.

Here’s the sad part: they’re right.

A few moments ago, I just had a very interesting and unique experience. I saw in black’n'white. I’d never had this happen before in my life. First I’ll describe the experience, then how I did it, which, curiously enough was repeatable.

With the totally unaided eye, my brain saw my surroundings, in broad daylight, in black and white. The only exception was that objects which were normally bright red had an ever slight red hue to them, but it was only brilliant red objects that did this.

The effect lasted about 7-10 seconds in duration before the color faded back in, almost as if the saturation was being brought up from near nothing to normal.

To convey the effect, this is much like the image I saw:

When I moved my eyes to look at other parts of the scene, the effect diminished, but if I kept focusing on one spot, like a child’s staring contest, the effect would hold longer. This was very much the inverse of the behavior of an after-image, where if you stay still it fades, but if you rapidly blink, it returns.

The black and white effect composed of the entire field of view. And as it gently faded back to normal, it affected more of the center of the field of view first:

It only took 2-3 seconds for normal color to return. There was no pain or any form of discomfort before, during, or after. I’m in very good health.

It was as if the signals from the cones were being ignored by the brain, but the signals from the rods were fine. I remember that the detail was astounding, and that the tone of the grass was very similar to the sky, though I’ve been unable to represent that as closely as I’d like in my photographic simulation.

I’m certain you’ve personally woken up in the morning and upon your eyes adjusting to the light have seen the image fade in, not focus, but as your brian assembles bits of the information into meaningful images, like it’s adapting to light after not being exposed to it for a long while.

Here’s how I did it.

I’m going to err on the side of giving too much information, some that might not be relevant, primarily because I don’t know what actually caused it. However, I was able to recreated it, on demand, several minutes later by experimentation; the effect lasted even longer. It was wondrous.

Being inside for the better part of the morning, I figured I’d go outside an lay in the sun for a few minutes. So, I lay down on my back on our driveway which has a slight incline. It was about thirty minutes past noon, and the sun was slightly overhead just off center to my right, enough that it was still bright enough that just closing my eyes was uncomfortable, so I criss-crossed my arms over them to put them in shadow, though I could still tell it was very bright out with my eyes closed. The weather was 89°F, I was in direct light, and there were few clouds in the sky.

I rested this way for about 10 minutes, and I did so just to the point where my eyes were fully relaxed and no longer concerned about the brightness of the light though my eyelids. Also, I wasn’t quite drifting off, but relaxed as you might be just taking in warmth of a nice day at the beach.

What led to the discovery was that I heard a car drive by and so I sat up quickly, opening my eyes. Two things stood out. One, this gave me a slight head-rush, though I’d describe it weak at best. Two, my eyes had not adjusted to the light fully. And, although while bright, it wasn’t uncomfortable, there was no blinding whitewash, no pain, and no caused for squinting required — I was looking away from direct light.

That’s when I noticed the scene seemed extremely washed out and monochromatic; it looked like a black and white photograph.

Thinking my mind or eyes were playing tricks on me, I moved my eyes, but the effect lasted longer than a second, though faded as I looked at more “new” material in my field of attention.

The reds came rushing back in first, with greens right after. It wasn’t one color than another, it was overlapped. I became visually more aware of reds, as that happened, greens started replacing the grey tones as well, and by the time greens were normal, the other colors like purples and blues from the nearby flowers in our garden were already present.

This part will be hard to describe because there’s no English equivalent for it, but it wasn’t like I was seeing in black and white, but rather the absence of color.

I know that sounds identical from a logic standpoint, but the perception was an absence of something, not the presence of something. Intellectually, I knew there had to be color, I just wasn’t seeing it.

It was a greyscale world that I physically saw, like a black and white movie, but a zillion times sharper, far more dynamic range, and in 3D.

It was clearly not imagination, nor dream, it was very real and perceptible.

That’s what made me want to try and repeat it.

Though this time around, if I could get it to work, I’d plan a more scientific excursion. So I selected an area of our yard with brilliant colors, our flower garden, which would be my baseline.

First, I waited about 5 minutes and looked at the area, taking in all the things I should be expecting to see. The area was already in normal color after the effect had faded long ago, but I wanted to be sure.

So, I laid back down with the intention of trying to get the head rush. I shielded my eyes in shadow, and waited for them to relax and get comfortable, and then waiting a moment, quickly sat up and stared at the area I knew had colorful flowers, a bright red car, and tons of green grass. I made sure I would focus only in one area, trying to stare out to infinity, much as you’d do for those 3D posters, though I was more trying to keep my eyes in a relaxed state because I wanted them in focus.

The preparation this time around took merely a minute or two. The head-rush was again weak from sitting up quickly. I turned in the direction I had planned and opened my eyes.

It’d worked.

The effect returned just as before, but lasted this time about 20 seconds and the effect was just as strong until I couldn’t help myself and look at the astounding detail in scene around me, which caused the effect to fade.

Since I had more time to study the scene, this is when I actually noticed the reds within the black’n'white image in my head. The B/W effect seemed more pronounced when I didn’t move my eyes, relaxing them.

When I turned to look at other things, color would seep in, and if I held my eyes relaxed in the same spot, the color would fade back out partly, much the same way as you can make objects in your blind spot vanish by holding your vision still long enough. That same kind of fading away was what I saw, but with color.

I suspect the effect is caused less by the head rush and more by the eyes being exposed and conditioned to bright light (even with the eyes closed, or maybe the red light through the eyelids saturates the cones like a red filter, though I did not see a green after image). When the eyes are opened, there’s a whole rush of visual information, and I suspect the brain is compensating for the overload by taking in shapes, detail, and tone and then overlaying color after the signal settles. I wasn’t aware that visual processing of color was an independent process.

This led me to two very interesting side thoughts.

One, I’ve always wondered if while under hypnosis people really saw things but said they didn’t, or whether their honestly perceived it. I now know it’s possible to perceive things differently than the visual input as actually providing.

Two, the black and white image was astonishingly detailed in greyscale, much like an Ansel Adams image. Being able to produce this effect on demand to view how a scene might be photographed in black and white is a fantastic tool to have in one’s photographic arsenal.

I hope science doesn’t declare this is bad for you, because I’m going to do it again!

[UPDATE: I can't get it to happen inside, seems bright sunlight is required.]

The new iPhone 3GS has a compass in it, and most certainly it’s going to be used for precision game play at some point.

Then it dawned on me, one of the number one applications of the iPhone is to act as babysitter. You fire up a game and hand it to the kids in the back seat as you’re driving somewhere.

I’m wondering how this is gonna work as people try to play compass-enabled games while moving, say a car, bus, or train.

My first gut instinct is that initial QAing of games will happen seated, but their real use will be in an environment where there’s motion, and at that point this potential problem may start to get noticed. It may surface as bugs, where ‘the game’ did something unexpected.

As for me, I can’t wait to see how a few malicious sharp terms and exit ramps will affect future game play.

As a glossed over quick introduction, MacHeist is a short-run sale of software packages for the Mac that has a twist. You pay $39 for a bundle of software, and some of that software is “locked.” A portion of your purchase price goes to charity, and the more money raised for charity, the more items in the bundle that get “unlocked.” Thus the more people buy, the more you continue to get. It’s a great scheme, only it isn’t working.

MacHeist, at the time of this writing, is conducting their third “heist” and after some amazing fluster of activity, new sales appear to have stagnated at an alarming rate.

Alarming to bundle purchasers, because if not enough sales happen, bundle purchasers won’t get all the amazing high-cost software at the extreme end of the bundle. What’s important about that statement is that it’s never happened before, and the problem isn’t the recession.

In informal polling, there appear to be two kinds of purchasers: early adopters and frugal purchasers.

The early adopter purchases the bundle early, knowing a good value when they see it, spurred on by the fact that there are additional incentives for doing so.

The frugal purchasers have their eye on either the final packages in the bundle, or are looking at the bundle as a whole. They don’t want to purchase the bundle until they know everything in it is unlocked.

And that’s the interesting part. If no one buys it, nothing gets unlocked. If everyone takes a risk, everyone gets handsomely rewarded, guaranteed. Thus each potential purchaser is waiting on the action of everyone else — it’s crowd mentality, only the driven behavior is idleness.

The secret ingredient is momentum. By carefully crafting a set of software incentives, under ideal circumstances the early adopter crowd overlaps with the late takers. This manifests itself as a steady stream of purchases.

It might be argued that The Directorate which runs MacHeist became victims of their own success and actually caused the problem by marketing the sale too well. Based on all the pre-sale puzzles, rumors, and incentives, there was a flurry of purchases in the early hours of the sale and projections seemed rather high.

However, one of the primary packages in the bundle required what looked like a high goal to unlock, the perception was that momentum was slowing. And perception drove reality. “Hmm, that doesn’t look like it’ll get unlocked, I think I’ll wait to see if it does before I buy,” is all it took to slow the influx of unlocking purchasers.

This was ill-timed, as it also happened to coincide with the reward for the first 25,000 buyers being removed from the table as the 25,000th bundle was sold. Days later, a only mere 5,000 more have sold and questions are being raised if the final packages will be unlocked.

The up-front fast burn created enough of a gap that people who were on the fence at different points became more segregated than usual. This didn’t happen in the last two sales.

So here’s my prediction: they have to fix this. Meaning, new incentives will re-emerge, the goals will have to be re-addressed, and it’s in the best interest of MacHeist to unlock the bundles anyhow at the end of it.

Turns out before I could finish this post, a new bonus was added, and that did stir a little traffic. But the real objective here is to convey there’s movement, specifically enough that the goal could be reached. That will inspire sales again, and in turn actually unlock the software. By re-calibrating the goal levels, this would solve the problem. In fact, the easy solution is to put all the last packages into one final, achievable goal.

The truth of the matter, however, is whatever happens will be remembered, if not chronicled in Wikipedia forever. If MacHeist goes down in flames for not unlocking all it’s bundled packages, people will be ever the more skeptical, and that means early adopters turning into late purchasers. That only exacerbates the problem, killing future sales opportunities.

By contrast, if the packages do get unlocked, whether by purchasers or by The Directorate making its own donation from the profits it receives, then MacHeist will be seen as more of a sure thing in the future, sliding more of the late comers and risk adverse customers into the early adopter side. This would actually increase future sales, because more gets unlocked sooner, enticing the skeptical buyers.

As such, “betting” on MacHeist with a purchase at this point still seems like a safe move. And, even if none of my predictions happen to come true, enough is unlocked already that the $39 price tag is still an awesome buy for the collection of software provided.

As a photographer that photographs models, there’s two primary goals that any website that tries to connect models and photographers should aim for:

All else is peripheral.

The idea is that if you’re a model looking for work, you post your portfolio online and photographers approach you with gigs. Conversely, if you’re a photographer, you post your portfolio and jobs start coming out of the wood work. The reality is that few sites can deliver on the promise adequately, not to a fault of the site’s objective, but due to design, business model complexities, or subtleties pertaining to the problem of brokering.

Naturally, for any such site to work you’re going to need a critical mass of both kinds of users just to have a wide enough selection to make this happen. As such, it’s important not to alienate users — something that is very easy to do with bad design or practice. It’s not enough that a site be free.

The closest site that I’ve come across that seems to have the right idea is www.ModelMayhem.com. It’s search capability is right on target. You tell it that you are looking for models in your local area that are some number of miles from your zipcode, that are between the ages of 18-24, female, 5′2″ – 5′7″, olive skin, with shoulder length black hair, green eyes, and poof — out pops a number of candidates.

This is the way it should work. You tell the criteria about what you need, and it finds people with those attributes.

The problem is the interface is klunky, the portfolio space limited, the navigation is horribly disorganized, and pretty much anything other than models is left wanting. Yet it’s still usable.

I wish it had a way to describe the kinds of services photographers offered and made them in a searchable fashion as well. Oh well, at least finding models isn’t problematic.

Such locator services are not a social network, nor are they a dating service. They’re supposed to be resources that connect professional with professional, with the added bonus of having a reasonable idea of what you’re getting. It frustrates me when a site is designed around chit-chat and messaging. Simply put let one professional find another, preview their work, and then get in contact with them by email; don’t obscure things. A site that works gets traffic, it doesn’t need fudging to get visitors.

Conversely, I just deleted my account over at www.aMuseBook.com, a web site that professes to do the same thing: connect models and photographers. I’d argue not only that it doesn’t, but that it physically can’t in my personal opinion — it’s a business model problem gone awry.

While better organized, and certainly much prettier, it’s search capabilities are downright awful. The best geographical resolution is state-level. So, if you’re looking for a model in Texas, that’s all of Texas. Additionally, providing search criteria for attributes just isn’t possible, which means locating a specific model by looks isn’t doable. And if you can’t find candidates, you aren’t going to be hiring.

Here’s another bad design choice that just seems obvious. If you want to find a model, you typically are looking for an age bracket, yes? Well, the site doesn’t let you search by age, instead you have to search by a specific birthday, which is stupid. Oh, and that’s a Day – Month – Year birthday at that. Even searching by year alone isn’t helpful, because simply year subtraction doesn’t give age.

Now while aMuseBook does give you more space to store your photos, it unlocks features using a point system. You gain points by commenting on people’s pictures and telling your friends to join. What becomes transparent very quickly is that the site is not structured to make contacts, but to get you to churn through pages so that Google Ads get thrown in your face generating an alternate revenue stream. I quickly got tired of being told in every email I have to “use” the site and it will ‘work’ for me.

Hogwash. If I can’t locate a model or post a comprehensive portfolio, then neither I, nor the models, are getting any serious value out of the site.

Adding insult to injury, the site gives you the ability to provide URLs to your own site; this sounds good at first, until you realize that many models and photographers keep their photos on Flickr. Why? Because Flickr is great for managing photos. But what does aMuseBook do for those sites? It blocks them out, showing up as www.*****.com, and when I questioned the site admin about it, I got back a response stating they didn’t want their site for depositing competitor URLs and not another portfolio site.

Wait a second. The service is there to help me find people by showing them my portfolio but they don’t want me to show them my portfolio if it’s elsewhere? Plus I can’t post my portfolio unless I leave comments that I wouldn’t have otherwise. That’s stacking the deck and gives unrealistic feedback. And when points are rewarded for clicking on ads, I’m pretty sure that’s against Google’s terms of service for AdSense.

If people are churning pages leaving “Nice smile” comments, how is one to know which comments are real (and therefore useful) versus people just trying to collect points? The information itself becomes devalued. Thus the business structure and the design alienates users in the short term, while the lack of utility alienates them in the long term. It can’t be viable.

And that’s why I deleted my account over there: It wasn’t usable or productive.

No wonder it’s so hard for models and photographers to get connected. I wish there were a simple directory that focused on doing one thing and one thing well, connecting professionals. It’s a hard problem, but the person that cracks that nut can steal a whole lot of business from all these other sites without trying too hard.

Fundamentally, the problem is that a brokering agent has to provide and organize information. Limiting it, not being able to search it, or failing to have a positive user experience drives away the very assets that are needed to make the site work. This appears to be a case where a well simple organized directory could be a winner-take-all.

---

UPDATE: I have found an awesome site for models, photographers, and makeup artists. It’s call Miss Online and it allows unlimited photo uploads with no point limitation schemes. It also includes discussions, groups, blogs, and email. The site is very active and quite attractive to use; advertising is at a minimum, and you aren’t coerced into clicking through tons of pages. Plus, and here’s the real proof: as a photographer I’ve had more exchanges with models with this one site than all the other sites combined. It does get you connected.

This morning Anti-Virus Guard,AVG (not the free version), decided that TRMSRV.DLL in the System32 directory was threat and copied it out of the directory.

The result was that Terminal Service no longer works. That means that software like Remote Desktop Connection 2 (RDC), can’t connect, although the machine responds to pings and Samba requests.

Placing a exception in AVG to not check that directory (sounds bad, eh?), and restoring the file from another machine seems to have temporarily address the problem.

I wonder if AVG knows about this.

We’re also seeing that Cygwin and the System Restore Point is also among the collateral damage.

UPDATE 11-Nov-2008: Looks like AVG is now flagging Windows as a virus.

Total speculation follows.

This weekend, I was at the Apple Store, and managed to get into a rather in depth conversation with someone, who, well, really knew their stuff. More so than other store employees I’ve chatted with, and some of them were pretty good.

I was passed the observation that an interesting “event” had occurred rather silently.

They ran out of iPhones.

This person explained to me that Apple does a really good job of keeping them stocked, since they were a major supplier for the area. However, they were clean out.

The only times that ever happened, was when Apple was about to change inventory on them. Killing the 4GB model was one. Going to the 16GB was the other.

A 32GB or 64GB iPhone seems likely, as iPhone customers want as much memory as an iTouch allows.

This would be a good time to add additional gestures, which, incidentally would help out with the lack of cut’n'paste.

But the real feature I’m looking for? The ability to push my contacts to other people with an iPhone. We’ve got the same device, the same applications, the same data, and bluetooth, there’s no technical reason I can’t give someone my ‘electronic business card’.

It’s been in the news that the ending to Battlestar Galactica has been rewritten.

Supposedly, it’s darker. Depressing. And, you might need a security blanket to get through it.

Here’s my speculation on what happens:

1. Adama finds Earth.
2. The Cylons find Earth.
3. The colonies are wiped out.
4. But, the Cylons finally figured out how to reproduce.
5. We, the viewers, are actually Cylons.
6. And to atone for their sins, the Cyclons made themselves forget they are Cylons.
7. The only remaining evidence is a population that is monotheistic, with legends of a polytheistic society.

Almost every manager I’ve known shakes their fist at project management tools. And while pretty Gantt charts, views of progress reports, and tasks lists appear in presentations, most of it is trickery. That is, all the real work is done by hand on paper or in a spreadsheet, and once figured out, is transcribed to a project tool to product the pretty charts.

What gives?

Project isn’t a drawing tool; it’s supposed to give and track useful information, not get in the way.

Isn’t project management software supposed to let you enter in your task list, assign resources, and produce an optimal schedule?

Well, yes. And, frankly, most people can get past that part. The problems kick in after that point.

Managers ditch project management tools when they start getting unexpected behaviors.

I’ve identified several problems that crop up frequently. Here’s some things to be aware of to help reign in the gremlins that like to scramble your projects.

Loss of Historical Information

If your project tool moves a completed task to a new point in the timeline, then it’s broken. You’ve found a bug. Completing a task anchors it in time.

Mysterious Chronological Task Reordering

When you list tasks, unless you explicitly state otherwise with a direct dependency, the software is allowed to reorder when a task begins. The software you’re using may have a different take on what makes sense.

I often see this problem happen when a time estimate is replaced with a more discrete breakdown of the task. For instance, deleting a 3 day task and replacing it with three 1 day tasks. Because project tools often assume you plan today and do tomorrow, you can sometimes end up with a hole in the schedule you want backfilled and that’s when the trouble starts.

In some cases, the software may decide to move one task from the end of the task list up to the front to fill in the hole; the justification is that it’s better to move one task than shuffle the whole schedule back. This may, or may not, be what you want.

More realistically, if you find tasks being shuffled out of order, the problem has more to do with when a task starts. Some software will force a task to start at a particular date in order to coerce the schedule; the problem is, if you’re unaware it’s done that, and you change some tasks, it might have imposed a schedule requirement upon you that isn’t real. You need to be diligent about such conditions.

Very intelligent schedulers will recognize the difference between a start constraint that you mandated, versus one that it derived.

Around the trouble spots, make sure that the tasks are set to be scheduled as soon as possible, depending on their assigned resources, and not an arbitrary date.

Never Trust Undo

While undo is supposed to put things back the way they were, it can be tricky to get right. Some operations may affect the properties of the tasks on your schedule. When you undo, it might undo what you’ve done, but keep the changes and constraints that it made.

A mature product will implement undo perfectly, but it never hurts to save a historical copy.

Put another way, just because the tasks return to their original positions after an undo, does not mean that new dependencies and criteria were properly cleared from the task properties.

Too Many User Supplied Dependencies

A dependency should only reflect inter-task dependencies, and that means you should use only the minimum required.

If you are using dependencies to force an ordered sequence to tasks that have no relationship, just to get them done in a certain order, you’re doing it wrong.

If you are using dependencies to coerce the software into producing a schedule ordering you want, you’re doing it wrong.

The problem with these two hack-it-til-it-works approaches is that when the schedule changes and you need to re-level it again, some dependencies are real and others are bogus. The software will account for all of them, and that will cause the scheduling algorithms to make bad decisions.

Today I was forwarded a review of OS X entitled: Leopard is the New Vista, and It’s Pissing Me Off.

I think it’s safe to say that I’m a fan of Apple, in general, as I find their hardware, environment, and tools far more productive for my development, office, and home needs than I ever did using Microsoft or its products.

I think it’s also fair to say that I’m willing to also point out when things don’t work:

• Duplication Menu Item Problems
• Having to rebuild Spotlight indexes, manually
• And, more recently, Four complaints of Leopard
• And very recently, Five Things I Can’t Do With OS X Mail RSS

Oliver Rist, raises some very good points in his treaty on Leopard’s recent similarities to Vista’s screw ups.

Here’s my take on his five points.

Vista Similarity 1: Wait for a Service Pack—Perpetually

Rist is right in saying that “[With Tiger] Everything. Just. Worked. Period.” I’m also quite in agreement that with Vista, even “a year after its shrink-wrapped release” it still has problems, driver issues, and “doesn’t work with 50 percent of new software.”

But I wonder how far back he’s actually recalling. Historically, I recall that each early version of Apple’s OS had serious kinks. Is comparing Tiger 10.4.9 with Leopard 10.5.1 actually a valid Apple to Apple comparison? (excuse the pun)

I’m with Rist if he thinks it should be, but accept the reality it isn’t. In my mind, Apple changed a number of things about the OS that they didn’t have to. Stability, size reduction, and additional hardware support will always earn high marks on my reviews. Unless the new glitz is functional, it doesn’t do much for me; but more on this in a moment.

At the moment, I’m tolerant because historically Apple has made right in reasonable time. By 10.4.3 and 10.4.4, I was quite happy. Given that I suspect Apple’s real purpose was not to make GUI fluff, but to pave the way for resolution independent graphics and new Core Animation, I’m surprised how well things held up.

Microsoft, Direct X improvements aside, gets no such pass, because as a whole, I still have problems with the OS, and it’s been around longer, and had more people working on it.

That said, I’m also aware that a good number of the Microsoft blue screens of death aren’t Microsoft’s fault — directly. When drivers do bad things, it can topple an OS. Of course, this leads me to wonder why Microsoft didn’t manage their kernel layers a bit better.

Knowing this actually provides some insight for Leopard as well. Everyone understood how Tiger worked. Too well, perhaps. There were quite a number of OS resource tweaks that delivered amazing integration and features. I was certainly one of the advanced users.

However, Apple assumes, and I think rightly so, that if you intend to do an upgrade in place, then if you’ve changed the operating system out from underneath them, you roll the dice. A number of people were bit by Unsanity’s Application Enhancer that didn’t upgrade at the last moment before installing Leopard.

Keeping up to date with OS X third-party applications is just as hard as it is on Windows. That’s why I eventually plopped down the money for Version Tracker Pro. Had I not, I would have been one of those that the new install would have taken out. Diligence is king.

Even so, my problems with an Upgrade was slightly broken features, like the password working after a screen save (despite the settings to the contrary), and performance. I later learned that the former was a permission problem on the preference, and the latter was a library extension that didn’t work with Leopard and just tried to keep reloading itself.

My solution was to do an Archive and Install. All of my options were preserved, just like an Upgrade in place, but because the OS was virgin fresh, my system behaved wonderfully.

I give Apple this round, simply because a “fresh install” with Microsoft is so destructive.

Oh, and yes, once you’ve touted something as a “new” feature, like 64 bit, you can’t do it again for the next release. That’s cheating.

Vista Similarity 2: Needless Graphics Glitz

I love eye candy as much as the next guy, and in my operating systems too.

However, I question the real value one gets out of it. As long as it doesn’t get in the way, that’s great. If it communicates more information subtly, that’s great too. Incidentally, what I mean by that is effects, like Genie, which show where your Window is going when you minimize it, is useful.

All these different preview modes, sliding covers, and non-sense, I could really care less about.

Though, I have to admit I’m a closet user of them. Sometimes it easier to quickly view an image to make sure I’ve got the right one, or scan the contents of a document because a poorly chosen filename was used. I’d like to think Apple could have done this without the big production.

What really gets my goat, however is that Tiger had transparent Windows. Then it went away! That really made me mad, because I was using them since I had a small desktop.

So, that made me go find Virtue, in order to have multiple desktops. My gosh, I loved that product. Where else could you have different backgrounds, on a 3D cube, and get to them by keystrokes, mouse maneuvers, or tilting or laptop or waving your hand over it and triggering the ambient light sensors!

But then Apple went and created Spaces. With no real future, Virtue is going away – - and killing off a fantastic sales tool for me. With no competition, I don’t see Apple adding these things back.

And, only now, are we starting to talk about the transparency I had before. Argh!!!

So, while Vista is pretty, and Apple is pretty, Apple got by for having slightly more than fluff for fluff’s sake. Apple gets to take this round, begrudgingly.

Vista Similarity 3: Pointless User Interface “Fixes”

I’ve got to say, again, I agree with Oliver. The new dock may look pretty, but Apple had an uncanny way of letting me know what was going on with those nice, readable from a distance, black, unobtrusive triangles.

Do I have a way to get them back?

Can I switch an put the dock on the side and get something more acceptable looking? Yes, but then again I don’t want it on the side.

It’s crappy decisions like this that cause people to write utilities to hack the operating system which cause the initial instability problems in the first place.

Using Vista as the example, just because something is pretty doesn’t mean it’s enjoyable to use.

Having said all of the above, I have to admit that many of the things I initially didn’t like, I quickly grew to use. They bother me less.

Let’s just say in this round, the bell rang, and there was no winner.

Vista Similarity 4: Nuked Networking

I groan when I see Microsoft operating systems splinter over stupid artificial limitations like how many network connections can be concurrently inbound or outbound. I shake my finger at any operating system which can’t handle jumbo packet sizes or let me switch between 10/100/1000 ethernet speeds.

But I do accept that Windows shares, using Samba, can be difficult with Microsoft deliberately sabotaging protocols to force a homogeneous network with them being the vendor. Embrace and Extend. Anti-Trust. Bogus interoperability. Halloween Memos. I just can’t take the message that Microsoft is out to help me seriously anymore; too much bad history; too little progress. DRM, WGA, poison pill updates, spying – that’s the reason I left Microsoft.

While I recognize that Apple and Microsoft are in a cat’n'mouse game for accessing Windows resources, I do have a complaint to put on Apple’s shoulders.

And that is: just because I have a network, doesn’t mean I want to network. Unless I’m trying to comb my network’s machines, don’t bring them all to my Finder. I don’t need that. I know what kind of network traffic Microsoft generates.

On the other side of the coin, VNC is now built in. And, well, wow. Apple, you did well there. It’s almost as if Apple knows I’m slowly expelling Microsoft and replacing it with Unix systems.

But that doesn’t change the fact that when I do need access to a Windows box, and I’m using my Mac, I want it to be just as seamless. Just the other day, I tried to copy a file from a Windows share to my local desktop to work with a local copy. Locally. (Sense a theme?)

The Windows box said “that file is in use” (because someone had the network Excel file open) and wanted to know if I wanted a read-only copy. The Mac, however, simply said Permission Error and never told me why.

Apple: I need error messages to not be so abstract. Give me a way to Option-Click on them or something and dump the error.h code; in short, if I’m smart enough to fend for myself, let me. Or, just make it work.

I assume people have already heard that if you Move (not copy) a file from one resource to the other, if the destination is full and aborts the copy, the source file still gets deleted (the other half of the move). I hope that’s fixed.

Now, the sheer fact that Microsoft has a horrible time with other OS’s (and depends on them playing by their rules), the final score for this one goes to Apple. Though Apple got lucky.

Vista Similarity 5: Bundled Apps as New Features That Suck

Oliver and I may start to part ways at this one, although not that far.

All the standard home and media applications Apple bundles with their OS are really top notch in my opinion. In fact, I buy iWork in addition to iLife. It’s Apple’s Pro applications that use a interface that I find very dated. And ugly.

But the feature we all seem to gripe on is Time Machine.

My first experiences with Time Machine were horrible. The system would seize up, and, well to be fair, I have to admit that this all went away after I did an Archive and Install, rather than the Upgrade in place over my existing patched OS Tiger.

And, while I applaud the concept of Time Machine, I don’t like that I can’t force it to kick off when I want. Or that I can’t easily point it at a common server. Or use it wirelessly.

But my biggest beef is why in the world Apple just didn’t hold off, wait until ZFS was working the way they wanted, and delivered something that managed things directly with the filesystem itself.

In addition to Time Machine, I find myself using SuperDuper and Carbon Copy Cloner to make quick, efficient backups, that are also bootable.

What I think Oliver might have missed is a subtle difference.
- With Time Machine, everything is backed up.
- Not that Time Machine backs up everything.

Let’s cover that a little closer. Time Machine does do a full backup, but then everything from then on out is incremental. And intelligently so. In fact, you can even go wandering around the files on the backup disk directly, should you choose to.

The way I’m reading things is that the review gives the impression everything is always backed up. That’s just not so.

Would I like to be able to tell Time Machine to only back up what I want it to? Yes. Please.

Would I like to only delete the things I intend to? Of course. But, realistically, it’s when I delete an important system file, and Time Machine has a copy, that I’ll suddenly become more forgiving of why it does what it does.

All his GUI gripes with Time Machine are dead on. However, when you get Time Machine working (via a clean Archive and Install – which keeps your preferences, data, and applications, btw), it does work as advertised.

It’s close. Time Machine’s integration is trivial. But over all, I think Vista’s backup, is better in the long run. Vista wins this round.

Oliver, I think, in this case was guilty of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. To be ticked off at the first version of a new application that could have been better, is justified. To extend that assessment to all bundled apps, as he does in his title, is not.

What the world hates is that after buying the OS, you still can’t do much with it. With Apple you can. And, with most Window machine purchases, you get a lot of crapware. Apple, you don’t.

In fact, I think Apple misses the mark. QuickTime Pro should be bundled with the OS, and if they were really on top of things, iWork as well. I’d gladly even pay the full retail price rolled into the cost of the machine. Why? Because can you image if everyone’s machine out of the box shipped with software that could do Office related stuff? You’d have a killer do-all platform from time the machine was powered up. There’s no way Microsoft could do that.

So, while Vista won this round, I’m gonna give Apple half-credit, since I think it was an unfair contests.

Walt’s Final Score

Apple 3.5 / 5; Vista 1 / 5.

I’d still rather use OS X Leopard than Vista any day of the week.

Walt gives OS X Leopard a thumbs up, even though it still needs some work.