Okay, so I've had this Motorola Atrix 4G smart phone for a couple of weeks now and all I can say is I'm glad I only paid a penny for it. Yeah, it's a cool gadget and all, but I'm on my laptops so much I really find its computing function to be superfluous.
When the late Steve Jobs introduced the first iPhone and with it the era of the touch screen smart phone, he characterized it as three new devices in one: a new iPod with a touch screen, a phone, and a mobile computing device. That's a pretty fair assessment of not only the iPhone's functionality but that of every touch screen smart phone out there, regardless of manufacturer or operating system. So let's see how the Atrix stacks up in these three areas:
Music player--To be honest, I really haven't yet had the opportunity to do much testing in this area. There was one mp3 file on the 512 megabyte micro SD card that I transferred over from the RAZR and that played just fine. I just bought a 32 gigabyte card online, so I'm looking to do a bit more testing when it arrives. Since I have Macs and a Linux laptop, the only way to get music onto the phone seems to be download it over the Internet on the phone itself or plug the micro SD card into a USB adapter and copy files over from my computer as if it were a flash drive. That's simple enough except for having to remove and replace the fingernail-sized memory card.
Phone--As I mentioned before, the sound quality on the Atrix is every bit as good as that of the RAZR, but there are two areas where it doesn't stack up so well. First is the user interface. Making and answering calls is simply a more complex task. I miss being able to answer the phone with the Captain Kirk 'whip-n-flip' maneuver--whipping out the phone and flipping open the cover with one hand in a single, fluid motion and hanging up simply by flipping the phone closed again, also with one hand. On the Atrix--or any smart phone for that matter--it's a two-handed, multi-step operation. This burying of the phone function is yet further reinforcement of the idea that a smart phone is not primarily a voice communication device but a mobile computing device, a touch-screen PDA with integrated telephony.
So how does it stack up as a computing device? For me, it's not that great. I went through a PDA phase back in the early 2000s with a couple of Palm devices and a PocketPC device and right now, I'm feeling a great sense of deja vu. It's a neat gadget, and it's pretty cool to be able to check my e-mail or Google something while I'm in the grocery store or wherever, but at the end of the day, it has little real utility for me. As I said earlier, I'm at my computers for so much of any given day that adding an additional means of data access just isn't a life changer for me. But then again, maybe I just haven't found that killer app yet. For now, when it comes to computing, I'll just stick to my computers.
One final note is on battery life, which seems to be a real problem for many smart phones. When I'm teaching, especially afternoon and evening classes, I see students scrambling for seats closest to the walls so they can plug in their smart phones to charge them. I have been pleasantly surprised to find that is not the case with my Atrix. Granted, it's not as good as the RAZR, but it's definitely acceptable. While I could go two or three days between charges on the RAZR, unless I had a marathon phone conversation, the Atrix's battery lasts between one and two days.
I have invested in a second battery and an external cradle charger for the Atrix, as I did for the RAZR. This allows me to have a fully charged battery ready to go whenever the one in the phone becomes depleted. Charging time is only a few hours, so the odds of having both batteries drained at once are pretty slim. This is something I would not be able to do with an iPhone, which has a sealed case.
So, do I regret replacing my trusty, if aging, RAZR with a newfangled smartphone? Not really. I needed to learn about touch screens and such, and I'm sure I'll occasionally find a use for some of the phone's advanced functions, but it really isn't a life changer, nor did I expect it to be. The interesting thing is that while I no longer find myself envious of folks with smart phones, I still don't understand why they're such a big deal.
Once again, Mr. Spock's parting words to his rival, Stonn, in the Star Trek episode "Amok Time" ring true: "After a time, you may find that to have is not nearly so great a thing as to want."
Friday, December 30, 2011
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Smart Phone--A Smart Decision?
Yesterday, I joined the ranks of the smart phone users. I've wanted an iPhone since they first came out, but I never could justify the expense, even though I qualified for an upgrade. It also didn't help that the iPhone didn't qualify for the discount I get through my employer, so I've just contented myself with a Motorola RAZR.
The good thing is, if you've got to content yourself with a phone, the RAZR is a great one to settle for. I've been using one since 2006 and it's given flawless service. I was actually kind of sad yesterday when I shut it down and pulled out the SIM card for the last time.
The decision to make the jump to a smart phone was kind of an impulse. I was on AT&T's Web site late last week, making an adjustment to my account that would save me a few bucks a month, and I decided to see what phone upgrades might be available. I looked at several Android smart phones and read some scary user reviews, then I spied the Motorola Atrix 4G. There were no user reviews, but when I brought up reviews from respected publications like PC Magazine, C-NET, and Endgadget, the consensus I read was that it was a pretty good piece of hardware. It even compared favorably with the iPhone 4. As if the reviews weren't a good enough enticement, AT&T was offering the Atrix 4G for a penny. It's sort of hard to argue with that kind of a price tag.
Placing an order for the phone on AT&T's seemed like it would be an easy thing, but I couldn't have been more wrong. A malfunction on the site prevented it from processing the instant rebate of $199.98 and thus was attempting to charge me $199.99 instead of one cent. Repeated online chat sessions with a supposed customer support representative didn't solve the problem. I'm nearly convinced there wasn't actually a real person there. The responses were too formal and too formulaic.
The last chat session ended with the suggestion that I call the customer service number, which I did--and got transferred a total of three times--before I ended up talking with someone who was empowered to process the order and apply the discount. The individual even waived the $18 upgrade fee to compensate me for my inconvenience It only took me three hours to make all that happen, and three days later, the phone was in my hands.
Since I've never owned or used any other smart phone, I have nothing with which to compare it except the other mobile phones I've owned. All but one of those phones has been a Motorola and all but one of those has been of excellent quality, so with the good reviews I read, I had few qualms about going with a Motorola smart phone.
The Atrix 4G seems to be built to Motorola's usual high standards, although the plastic back panel is a bit of a disappointment after five years of the RAZR's machined aluminum outer shell. While it doesn't exactly feel cheap, the panel's satin finish makes it somewhat slippery and hard to hold onto. It's also a bit difficult to remove. This design was improved somewhat with the Atrix 2, which has a rubberized back panel. Too bad they aren't swappable.
As a phone, the Atrix seems to function acceptably with excellent sound quality. I actually got rid of my landline a few years ago because my RAZR's sound quality was so superior to that of the house phone that I tended not to use the latter if I could avoid it. But the phone function is also where this device begins to differentiate itself from the RAZR. Whereas the RAZR was primarily a phone with a few PDA-like features thrown in for good measure, the Atrix 4G--probably like all smart phones--is a handheld mobile computing device that also happens to function as a phone. As it turns out, this is an important distinction because the Atrix takes an extra step or two just to access the phone to make a call. It's actually little wonder that so many people who have smart phones tend to text more than they talk.
So right now, I'm on a learning curve with this phone. Some features are more intuitive than others, and dialing on a slick glass surface takes some getting used to. I'll check back in when I've had more of an opportunity to live with it and let you know whether I'm a convert.
The good thing is, if you've got to content yourself with a phone, the RAZR is a great one to settle for. I've been using one since 2006 and it's given flawless service. I was actually kind of sad yesterday when I shut it down and pulled out the SIM card for the last time.
The decision to make the jump to a smart phone was kind of an impulse. I was on AT&T's Web site late last week, making an adjustment to my account that would save me a few bucks a month, and I decided to see what phone upgrades might be available. I looked at several Android smart phones and read some scary user reviews, then I spied the Motorola Atrix 4G. There were no user reviews, but when I brought up reviews from respected publications like PC Magazine, C-NET, and Endgadget, the consensus I read was that it was a pretty good piece of hardware. It even compared favorably with the iPhone 4. As if the reviews weren't a good enough enticement, AT&T was offering the Atrix 4G for a penny. It's sort of hard to argue with that kind of a price tag.
Placing an order for the phone on AT&T's seemed like it would be an easy thing, but I couldn't have been more wrong. A malfunction on the site prevented it from processing the instant rebate of $199.98 and thus was attempting to charge me $199.99 instead of one cent. Repeated online chat sessions with a supposed customer support representative didn't solve the problem. I'm nearly convinced there wasn't actually a real person there. The responses were too formal and too formulaic.
The last chat session ended with the suggestion that I call the customer service number, which I did--and got transferred a total of three times--before I ended up talking with someone who was empowered to process the order and apply the discount. The individual even waived the $18 upgrade fee to compensate me for my inconvenience It only took me three hours to make all that happen, and three days later, the phone was in my hands.
Since I've never owned or used any other smart phone, I have nothing with which to compare it except the other mobile phones I've owned. All but one of those phones has been a Motorola and all but one of those has been of excellent quality, so with the good reviews I read, I had few qualms about going with a Motorola smart phone.
The Atrix 4G seems to be built to Motorola's usual high standards, although the plastic back panel is a bit of a disappointment after five years of the RAZR's machined aluminum outer shell. While it doesn't exactly feel cheap, the panel's satin finish makes it somewhat slippery and hard to hold onto. It's also a bit difficult to remove. This design was improved somewhat with the Atrix 2, which has a rubberized back panel. Too bad they aren't swappable.
As a phone, the Atrix seems to function acceptably with excellent sound quality. I actually got rid of my landline a few years ago because my RAZR's sound quality was so superior to that of the house phone that I tended not to use the latter if I could avoid it. But the phone function is also where this device begins to differentiate itself from the RAZR. Whereas the RAZR was primarily a phone with a few PDA-like features thrown in for good measure, the Atrix 4G--probably like all smart phones--is a handheld mobile computing device that also happens to function as a phone. As it turns out, this is an important distinction because the Atrix takes an extra step or two just to access the phone to make a call. It's actually little wonder that so many people who have smart phones tend to text more than they talk.
So right now, I'm on a learning curve with this phone. Some features are more intuitive than others, and dialing on a slick glass surface takes some getting used to. I'll check back in when I've had more of an opportunity to live with it and let you know whether I'm a convert.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Farewell, Fedora 14...
As promised, here is the follow-up to my previous post, "Looking for a New Linux".
Fedora 16 was released three days ago and I've been experimenting with it in both the GNOME 3.2 interface and the XFCE interface. While GNOME is definitely pretty, it leaves a lot to be desired. The desktop, for instance, is a massive no-man's land where you can't put a icon. To do anything at all, you have to click the "Activities" button at the upper left corner of the screen, which activates a side bar reminiscent of Mac OS X's Dock. I have to agree with its many critics, including Linus Torvalds himself, who characterized it as an "unholy mess". In my opinion, the interface places form over function to such an extent that it's practically useless. This problem is only exacerbated by the fact that you can't customize the interface at all. It's even more locked down that Mac OS X and not nearly as user friendly.
The XFCE interface, on the other hand, is a lot better. I first experimented with Fedora 16 with XFCE and felt immediately at home, both because it bears a close resemblence to GNOME 2.x, but it also felt a little Mac-like at the same time.
Fedora 16 XFCE had a sort of glitchy startup, which required my intervention to solve, so I found myself thinking toward Ubuntu, but I wasn't completely sold on the Unity interface. Eventually, I realized I could have the best of both worlds with Xubuntu 11.10, which is the latest Ubuntu with XFCE.
Pronounced "zoo-BOON-too," Xubuntu offers the a highly customizable, yet user friendly interface that's light on system resources, yet retains the best of Ubuntu's user friendly features. And with just a few mouse clicks, I was able to make it look a lot like Mac OS X. All I can say is "Honey, I'm home!"
Now here's the crazy part: This system is so user friendly, the installer gives you access to the Web while the operating system is installing. Believe it or not, I'm actually typing this on my HP laptop as the operating system installs!
Update: 11/16/2011
So I've had Xubuntu installed on my HP laptop for almost a week now and all I can say is I love it. I've never felt as at home with any Linux distribution. I've always found Linux to be usable but it often took an effort to enjoy it. This time, it's different. Granted, it's not as slick as Mac OS X, but it also isn't nearly as frustrating as Windows. I feel like I have control and that's a good thing. The important part is I can use it without thinking about what operating system I'm on. I just do what feels natural and intuitive and most of the time it just works. I've always believed alternatives are a good thing, and this is definitely a good alternative; in fact, this is as close as I've found to what I've envisioned as my ideal Linux. It's not perfect by any means, but then what system is? The bottom line is when I'm using it, I'm focusing on the task at hand and not some quirk of the operating system.
Fedora 16 was released three days ago and I've been experimenting with it in both the GNOME 3.2 interface and the XFCE interface. While GNOME is definitely pretty, it leaves a lot to be desired. The desktop, for instance, is a massive no-man's land where you can't put a icon. To do anything at all, you have to click the "Activities" button at the upper left corner of the screen, which activates a side bar reminiscent of Mac OS X's Dock. I have to agree with its many critics, including Linus Torvalds himself, who characterized it as an "unholy mess". In my opinion, the interface places form over function to such an extent that it's practically useless. This problem is only exacerbated by the fact that you can't customize the interface at all. It's even more locked down that Mac OS X and not nearly as user friendly.
The XFCE interface, on the other hand, is a lot better. I first experimented with Fedora 16 with XFCE and felt immediately at home, both because it bears a close resemblence to GNOME 2.x, but it also felt a little Mac-like at the same time.
Fedora 16 XFCE had a sort of glitchy startup, which required my intervention to solve, so I found myself thinking toward Ubuntu, but I wasn't completely sold on the Unity interface. Eventually, I realized I could have the best of both worlds with Xubuntu 11.10, which is the latest Ubuntu with XFCE.
Pronounced "zoo-BOON-too," Xubuntu offers the a highly customizable, yet user friendly interface that's light on system resources, yet retains the best of Ubuntu's user friendly features. And with just a few mouse clicks, I was able to make it look a lot like Mac OS X. All I can say is "Honey, I'm home!"
Now here's the crazy part: This system is so user friendly, the installer gives you access to the Web while the operating system is installing. Believe it or not, I'm actually typing this on my HP laptop as the operating system installs!
Update: 11/16/2011
So I've had Xubuntu installed on my HP laptop for almost a week now and all I can say is I love it. I've never felt as at home with any Linux distribution. I've always found Linux to be usable but it often took an effort to enjoy it. This time, it's different. Granted, it's not as slick as Mac OS X, but it also isn't nearly as frustrating as Windows. I feel like I have control and that's a good thing. The important part is I can use it without thinking about what operating system I'm on. I just do what feels natural and intuitive and most of the time it just works. I've always believed alternatives are a good thing, and this is definitely a good alternative; in fact, this is as close as I've found to what I've envisioned as my ideal Linux. It's not perfect by any means, but then what system is? The bottom line is when I'm using it, I'm focusing on the task at hand and not some quirk of the operating system.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Looking for a new Linux
For the record, I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Mac person, but for some perverse reason, I've had a continuing fascination with the GNU/Linux operating systems for the past few years. I've long been a fan of free and open source software (FOSS). I've used Mozilla and later Firefox as my browser of choice, and although I use M$ Office in my work out of necessity, my preferred productivity suite for the past decade has been OpenOffice.org, although lately I've switched my allegiance to its progeny, LibreOffice.
I first encountered Linux up close and personal early in 2009 when I helped a buddy of mine install Ubuntu Linux on another friend's laptop. His WindowsXP installation had a terminal case of "Windows Rot" and he had lost the installation and recovery discs, so the only alternative was a "nuclear" option of reformatting the hard drive and installing Linux. Once we got it up and running, I was sufficiently impressed to obtain a cheap used laptop on eBay, install Linux on it, and write an article about the experience for PCSolutions magazine.
I installed OpenSUSE Linux on that laptop because it had relatively modest graphics requirements and although I'm not a Windows fan, the modified GNOME interface, which mimicked WindowsXP in many respects, made the transition to Linux fairly intuitive. Most amazingly, the computer ran much faster on Linux than it did on Windows.
I made good use of that computer for about three years, periodically updating the OS as new versions of OpenSUSE came out. Each new version ran a little better on that machine, except for the one time I decided to try the KDE interface. It finally died in a horrible hard drive crash a few weeks ago, and because the hardware was so outdated, I just couldn't justify replacing the drive. Instead, I went back to eBay to see what might be available in a used laptop on which to further my Linux experimentations.
The replacement was an HP nc6000 laptop. Although it's five years old, it was a high-end piece of hardware when it was new, so it has aged relatively gracefully. I got the thing for a paltry sum, partially because it was loaded with Fedora Linux instead of WindowsXP. That suited me just fine, except the computer is running version 14 of Fedora, for which support will end in a few weeks when the final release version of Fedora 16 comes out.
For that reason, I've been shopping for a new Linux distribution to replace Fedora 14. My front runners are Fedora 16 (now in beta release), OpenSUSE 12.1 (now in beta release), and Ubuntu 10.10 (now in full release). All three of these releases will take some getting used to as they all sport revised user interfaces. Fedora and OpenSUSE will have GNOME 3.2 and Ubuntu will have Ubuntu's proprietary Unity interface.
I recently downloaded a live CD of Fedora 15, which also uses GNOME 3.x, and I was less than impressed. I can't put my finger on it exactly, but much of the way it worked seemed counter intuitive. For this reason, I'm shying away from Fedora 16, although I am willing to load up a live CD and take it around the block. One mark against Fedora is it contains no proprietary software like Adobe Flash Player or even codecs for playing mp3 files or DVDs. It's taken me a while to get that stuff working under Fedora 14 and I still can't play a DVD.
I have not yet run OpenSUSE 12 from a live CD and will probably wait at least until it comes out in a release candidate version. I have read that its interface is virtually identical to that of Fedora 16. The big difference, in my experience, is OpenSUSE makes it a bit easier to install proprietary software when needed.
Although I've spent a lot of time with the 11.x releases of OpenSUSE, I'm somewhat inclined to let this one go because I have had difficulty getting wireless networking up and running on other machines I've loaded OpenSUSE onto. By contrast, wireless networking on Fedora and Ubuntu have been up and running from the proverbial git-go. All I've had to do is enter my WEP key and I'm off to the races, even running from a live CD.
Right now, Ubuntu 10.10 is my favorite of the three. Although its Unity interface has GNOME 3 underpinnings, it is much more refined and somehow more intuitive despite the fact that it's quite different from more conventional Windows and Mac OS X interfaces. The other big selling point for me is that everything works from the first start-up and the aforementioned proprietary pieces can be downloaded and installed when you're installing the operating system, provided you have a working Internet connection. That's all good stuff in my book.
The only reservation I have about Ubuntu is it seems to run a little sluggishly at times. I'm sure this will improve when I'm running it from the internal hard drive, but it does give me pause. Fedora 14 is lightning quick by comparison.
Another option that I have not yet explored is to install Fedora 16 with the xfce interface. It's more basic, more Windows like, but it should run well since it's designed to take up minimal system resources. I read not too long ago that Linus Torvalds, who invented Linux, has switched over to xfce from GNOME as his interface of choice since the introduction of GNOME 3.x.
When it comes to choices for this little Linux box, it seems I've got an embarrassment of riches. When I make a final decision, I'll let you know.
I first encountered Linux up close and personal early in 2009 when I helped a buddy of mine install Ubuntu Linux on another friend's laptop. His WindowsXP installation had a terminal case of "Windows Rot" and he had lost the installation and recovery discs, so the only alternative was a "nuclear" option of reformatting the hard drive and installing Linux. Once we got it up and running, I was sufficiently impressed to obtain a cheap used laptop on eBay, install Linux on it, and write an article about the experience for PCSolutions magazine.
I installed OpenSUSE Linux on that laptop because it had relatively modest graphics requirements and although I'm not a Windows fan, the modified GNOME interface, which mimicked WindowsXP in many respects, made the transition to Linux fairly intuitive. Most amazingly, the computer ran much faster on Linux than it did on Windows.
I made good use of that computer for about three years, periodically updating the OS as new versions of OpenSUSE came out. Each new version ran a little better on that machine, except for the one time I decided to try the KDE interface. It finally died in a horrible hard drive crash a few weeks ago, and because the hardware was so outdated, I just couldn't justify replacing the drive. Instead, I went back to eBay to see what might be available in a used laptop on which to further my Linux experimentations.
The replacement was an HP nc6000 laptop. Although it's five years old, it was a high-end piece of hardware when it was new, so it has aged relatively gracefully. I got the thing for a paltry sum, partially because it was loaded with Fedora Linux instead of WindowsXP. That suited me just fine, except the computer is running version 14 of Fedora, for which support will end in a few weeks when the final release version of Fedora 16 comes out.
For that reason, I've been shopping for a new Linux distribution to replace Fedora 14. My front runners are Fedora 16 (now in beta release), OpenSUSE 12.1 (now in beta release), and Ubuntu 10.10 (now in full release). All three of these releases will take some getting used to as they all sport revised user interfaces. Fedora and OpenSUSE will have GNOME 3.2 and Ubuntu will have Ubuntu's proprietary Unity interface.
I recently downloaded a live CD of Fedora 15, which also uses GNOME 3.x, and I was less than impressed. I can't put my finger on it exactly, but much of the way it worked seemed counter intuitive. For this reason, I'm shying away from Fedora 16, although I am willing to load up a live CD and take it around the block. One mark against Fedora is it contains no proprietary software like Adobe Flash Player or even codecs for playing mp3 files or DVDs. It's taken me a while to get that stuff working under Fedora 14 and I still can't play a DVD.
I have not yet run OpenSUSE 12 from a live CD and will probably wait at least until it comes out in a release candidate version. I have read that its interface is virtually identical to that of Fedora 16. The big difference, in my experience, is OpenSUSE makes it a bit easier to install proprietary software when needed.
Although I've spent a lot of time with the 11.x releases of OpenSUSE, I'm somewhat inclined to let this one go because I have had difficulty getting wireless networking up and running on other machines I've loaded OpenSUSE onto. By contrast, wireless networking on Fedora and Ubuntu have been up and running from the proverbial git-go. All I've had to do is enter my WEP key and I'm off to the races, even running from a live CD.
Right now, Ubuntu 10.10 is my favorite of the three. Although its Unity interface has GNOME 3 underpinnings, it is much more refined and somehow more intuitive despite the fact that it's quite different from more conventional Windows and Mac OS X interfaces. The other big selling point for me is that everything works from the first start-up and the aforementioned proprietary pieces can be downloaded and installed when you're installing the operating system, provided you have a working Internet connection. That's all good stuff in my book.
The only reservation I have about Ubuntu is it seems to run a little sluggishly at times. I'm sure this will improve when I'm running it from the internal hard drive, but it does give me pause. Fedora 14 is lightning quick by comparison.
Another option that I have not yet explored is to install Fedora 16 with the xfce interface. It's more basic, more Windows like, but it should run well since it's designed to take up minimal system resources. I read not too long ago that Linus Torvalds, who invented Linux, has switched over to xfce from GNOME as his interface of choice since the introduction of GNOME 3.x.
When it comes to choices for this little Linux box, it seems I've got an embarrassment of riches. When I make a final decision, I'll let you know.
Monday, October 10, 2011
Streaming simplicity
For the past few years, I've been fond of listening to streaming radio stations while I work on the computer. When I first got broadband around 2004, I discovered the radio tab in iTunes and was instantly hooked. My enduring favorites include:
Last night, I found a better way to listen to Internet radio streams, if only on my laptop, which runs Fedora Linux. My new best friend for streaming is a little application called Radio Tray, which puts a little icon on the system tray and allows one to select a stream to listen to. Its simplicity is sheer elegance. The interface is nothing but a drop down menu from which I can choose a stream. The best part is I can get to any of my favorite Internet radio stations with a single mouse click and have tunes streaming from my speakers in a matter of seconds.
Right-clicking the icon brings up a preferences menu from which one can add more stations or set a sleep timer so you can listen to your favorite stream while you drift off. This truly is a case where less is more. I just wish they would come up with a version for Mac OS X.
- Haveyouherd radio--If you're into bands like Donna the Buffalo and Railroad Earth, this is your slice of Internet heaven.
- Reallymusic Radio--I'd swear someone's rifling through my record collection and playing them online when I'm not looking.
- WNCW FM--Probably the most original public radio station in North Carolina. Curiously, their stream consistently goes silent on Fridays from 12:00 noon 'til 1:00 p.m. when they play "Frank on Fridays," an hourlong weekly exploration of the music of Frank Zappa.
Last night, I found a better way to listen to Internet radio streams, if only on my laptop, which runs Fedora Linux. My new best friend for streaming is a little application called Radio Tray, which puts a little icon on the system tray and allows one to select a stream to listen to. Its simplicity is sheer elegance. The interface is nothing but a drop down menu from which I can choose a stream. The best part is I can get to any of my favorite Internet radio stations with a single mouse click and have tunes streaming from my speakers in a matter of seconds.
Right-clicking the icon brings up a preferences menu from which one can add more stations or set a sleep timer so you can listen to your favorite stream while you drift off. This truly is a case where less is more. I just wish they would come up with a version for Mac OS X.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Sad Macs and black turtlenecks...
Ironically, his passing comes almost exactly 20 years to the day after I took delivery of my first Macintosh computer--a Mac Classic with two megabytes of RAM and a 40-megabyte hard drive. It came with a monochrome StyleWriter ink jet printer and I felt like I was ready to take on the world. Two decades, 10 Macs and two iPods later, I still consider myself among the Apple faithful, grateful to Jobs, his early partner Steve Wozniak, and their vision that has so greatly changed our world. I'm not going to recount his exploits and accomplishments. That's been done to death (sorry, bad pun). Instead, I'll concentrate on how Jobs' vision has impacted my own life.
At the time I got that first Mac, Jobs was in the midst of his exile from Apple and the company was heading into its darkest days. I was just beginning graduate school. The Humanities Computer Lab at N.C. State University had a whole bunch of IBM PCs with green screen monitors sporting WordPerfect 5.1 on DOS, but in the back were four or five Macs. They were the original all-in-ones with nine-inch black-and-white screens, but sitting down at one of those was a whole different experience. I knew within minutes of touching one for the first time that it was the computer for me. Less than a month later, I ordered one from the campus bookstore and I haven't looked back.
Having a Mac back in the early '90s made me feel like I was part of the cool kids' club, something I've seldom experienced in my life. For once in my life, I was the one with the cool toys, especially compared to the DOS-based PCs most people had. But more than that, I had a machine that would allow me to unlock my creative side in a way that I had never before been able to do.
Although to be completely honest, had I started graduate school a year later, I might well have settled blithely into the world of Windows as those DOS PCs were replaced in the lab the following year with newer Windows models. Instead, I've always seen Windows for the derivative work it is. Microsoft developed Windows after getting a look at the Mac operating system's source code in order to create Word, which was originally a Mac application.
Of course, the graphical user interface didn't originate with Apple. Legend has it Apple stole the design from Xerox after examining Alto, a prototype project developed at Xerox's Palo Alto Research Center (PARC). The more accurate version of the story, as told by Steve Wozniak in his autobiography iWoz, is that Apple adapted the graphical interface first to the Lisa and then the Macintosh with Xerox's blessing because unlike the upstarts from Apple, they didn't see it as having any commercial viability. Jobs, on the other hand said he realized almost instantly that he was seeing the very future of computing. It was that laser focused vision, the ability to see what the market wanted before the market even knew it existed, that will be sorely be missed at Apple and in the technology industry as a whole.
That's why I show my tech writing students a YouTube video of how Jobs crafted his presentations when we talk about oral communication. I want to expose them to a little of that passion and vision so that maybe, just maybe, one of them will catch the spark and do something insanely great with his or her life. That would be the highest tribute anyone could pay Steve--or me.
Update--Shortly after I posted this, I went out to run some errands and found myself at a nearby thrift shop. My only purchase was a black turtleneck shirt.
Friday, August 5, 2011
Pullin' Parts
There are few experiences I have found more satisfying than getting an old car and fixing it up to be, well, maybe not just like new but definitely closer to new or newish than it was when I acquired it. I've done this twice. The first time, I was in high school back in the early '80s and got a 1968 VW Beetle that was mechanically sound and needed, well, just about everything else. It was the second Bug I had owned. The first one was a '72 model that looked great and had some serious mechanical problems. As part of the transition between these two, I picked up a wrecked '71 Super Beetle that offered just about everything I needed to fix both of the other cars with a bunch of parts left over. The engine went into the '72, which I sold for enough to just about break even on all three cars. Most of the interior and some of the body panels went into the '68, although the front fenders and trunk lid had to be sourced from elsewhere. I took the best of the available parts and made the most of what I had, and when I had it finished and painted, the end result wasn't half bad. It was lots of fun and I took great satisfaction in knowing I had made the car what it had become.
Flash forward some 30 years and it's become deja vu all over again. Last fall, I needed a car and was short on funds. My previous car had developed some serious mechanical issues that were beyond my financial means to repair, so it was more cost effective to buy another car, albeit a cheap one, and sell off the old one.
The solution I found was a '95 Pontiac Bonneville that was nicely equipped and in reasonably good mechanical condition, but had a few minor issues, not the least of which was that the paint was peeling off most the trunk and rear quarter panels. Still, it was reliable, affordable transportation. It kept me on the road and I knew I could fix most of the little issues it had.
In looking at another car, the seller told me of a junk yard in a neighboring town called Pull-A-Part (www.pullapart.com) that had terrific prices on used parts, but with one little catch--you have to bring your own tools and harvest the parts yourself. Whle this means extra work for the customer, sometimes in less than pleasant weather, it also has some distinct advantages. The first is you can pick and choose from the available vehicles to find the best available part for your need. The second is that in removing the part, you can educate yourself on the procedure before you do it to your own car. Better to do this on a car you can afford to mess up. Plus, it's okay to be a little brutal to these donor vehicles; they don't feel any pain.
I've had incredible luck at my local Pull-A-Part. I've found lots of things I needed form a turn signal lamp to a power antenna, as well as little upgrades like a better radio and a center console cup holder that wasn't originally included on my car.
I mentioned the paint on my Bonneville earlier because one of my summer projects has been to sand and spot paint the areas where the paint was peeling. It's not perfect, but it's definitely better than it was before I started. The worst of these areas was the trunk lid, which was missing about half its paint. I wasn't looking forward to doing all that sanding in the summer heat and I knew the end result wouldn't be all that great when I got finished.
Fortunately, on a recent trip to Pull-A-Part I harvested a power antenna from a white Bonneville with much better paint than mine. How ironic, I thought, that this car, the same color as mine, should be sitting here at the end of its useful life with such good paint. Then I took a closer look at the trunk lid and realized the swap would be pretty easy. Just take out four bolts and run some wires for the tail lights and automatic trunk release. The only catch (no pun intended) was the lock cylinder since there was no trunk key with the donor car.
After a little online research at www.pontiacbonnevilleclub.com, I learned that a lock cylinder swap really isn't that difficult—just remove a retaining clip and it falls out—so I found someone with a pickup truck and some time on his hands (this was actually the most difficult part of the entire project) and made a return trip to Pull-A-Part. It was a hellishly hot July day, but with a little blood from scraped knuckles and a whole lot of sweat, we got the new trunk lid off the donor car and swapped it over onto mine. The car now looks great with a whole lot less effort than to sand and paint it myself and a whole lot less expense than to have it painted professionally.
Having an old car and fixing it up is a singularly gratifying experience I would recommend to anyone who knows his or her way around a wrench or socket set. There is simply no better way to become one with your vehicle. And having a resource like Pull-A-Part makes it all the more cost effective.
Flash forward some 30 years and it's become deja vu all over again. Last fall, I needed a car and was short on funds. My previous car had developed some serious mechanical issues that were beyond my financial means to repair, so it was more cost effective to buy another car, albeit a cheap one, and sell off the old one.
The solution I found was a '95 Pontiac Bonneville that was nicely equipped and in reasonably good mechanical condition, but had a few minor issues, not the least of which was that the paint was peeling off most the trunk and rear quarter panels. Still, it was reliable, affordable transportation. It kept me on the road and I knew I could fix most of the little issues it had.
In looking at another car, the seller told me of a junk yard in a neighboring town called Pull-A-Part (www.pullapart.com) that had terrific prices on used parts, but with one little catch--you have to bring your own tools and harvest the parts yourself. Whle this means extra work for the customer, sometimes in less than pleasant weather, it also has some distinct advantages. The first is you can pick and choose from the available vehicles to find the best available part for your need. The second is that in removing the part, you can educate yourself on the procedure before you do it to your own car. Better to do this on a car you can afford to mess up. Plus, it's okay to be a little brutal to these donor vehicles; they don't feel any pain.
I've had incredible luck at my local Pull-A-Part. I've found lots of things I needed form a turn signal lamp to a power antenna, as well as little upgrades like a better radio and a center console cup holder that wasn't originally included on my car.
I mentioned the paint on my Bonneville earlier because one of my summer projects has been to sand and spot paint the areas where the paint was peeling. It's not perfect, but it's definitely better than it was before I started. The worst of these areas was the trunk lid, which was missing about half its paint. I wasn't looking forward to doing all that sanding in the summer heat and I knew the end result wouldn't be all that great when I got finished.
Fortunately, on a recent trip to Pull-A-Part I harvested a power antenna from a white Bonneville with much better paint than mine. How ironic, I thought, that this car, the same color as mine, should be sitting here at the end of its useful life with such good paint. Then I took a closer look at the trunk lid and realized the swap would be pretty easy. Just take out four bolts and run some wires for the tail lights and automatic trunk release. The only catch (no pun intended) was the lock cylinder since there was no trunk key with the donor car.
After a little online research at www.pontiacbonnevilleclub.com, I learned that a lock cylinder swap really isn't that difficult—just remove a retaining clip and it falls out—so I found someone with a pickup truck and some time on his hands (this was actually the most difficult part of the entire project) and made a return trip to Pull-A-Part. It was a hellishly hot July day, but with a little blood from scraped knuckles and a whole lot of sweat, we got the new trunk lid off the donor car and swapped it over onto mine. The car now looks great with a whole lot less effort than to sand and paint it myself and a whole lot less expense than to have it painted professionally.
Having an old car and fixing it up is a singularly gratifying experience I would recommend to anyone who knows his or her way around a wrench or socket set. There is simply no better way to become one with your vehicle. And having a resource like Pull-A-Part makes it all the more cost effective.
Friday, July 8, 2011
...The Final Frontier
About an hour ago, I witnessed the end of an era as the space shuttle Atlantis cleared the launch pad for the final time. The mission, which will take the shuttle to the International Space Station on Sunday, is scheduled return to the earth on July 20, just two days shy of the forty-second anniversary of the Apollo 11 lunar landing.*
I was five years old when Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin set foot on the lunar surface. In fact, the space program was the first news event I remember being aware of and interested in as a child, although I do remember being somewhat irritated when my Saturday morning cartoons were interrupted for live coverage of Alan Shepherd hitting golf balls on the moon. Nonetheless, I was a big astronaut fan. I ate Space Food Sticks, drank Tang, played with my Major Matt Mason toys, and watched Star Trek religiously, considering it a foregone conclusion that the starship Enterprise would someday be a reality.
I also remember feeling very let down when the Apollo lunar missions came to an end in 1972. Somehow Skylab and the Apollo/Soyuz "handshake in space" in the mid-1970s seemed more than a little anti-climactic after exploring the moon. It seemed to me that we should be reaching out even further to Mars and beyond instead of shackling ourselves to low earth orbit.
That future seemed to be within our grasp in the late 1970s, when the first shuttle prototype, the Enterprise, named for TV's most famous starship, rolled out of the hangar to sound of a military band playing the theme from Star Trek while several members of the show's cast looked on. Still, TV continued to stay a few steps ahead of reality.
A couple of years before the space shuttle Enterprise made its debut, another show called Space: 1999 took to the airwaves. Set on a moon that had been blasted out of earth's orbit by massive explosions at a lunar nuclear waste dump, the show depicted what seemed a very realistic view of earth's next logical step in space, a permanent colony on the moon. The Eagle spaceships on that show not only bore the name of the first lunar lander, they looked as though their design could have evolved from the Apollo LEM (Lunar Excursion Module) spacecraft. Unfortunately, that vision of the future also has yet to come to pass.
As the 1980s dawned, so did a new era for America's efforts at manned space exploration. In the spring of 1981, the space shuttle Columbia set off on its maiden voyage, lifting the nation's spirits with it. I remember watching TV coverage of the event and thinking 'I feel good about America again' as the malaise of the post-Vietnam/post-Watergate era seemed to fall away with the solid rocket boosters and external fuel tank. I regarded the concept of a reusable spacecraft as a bold first step toward that starship future. Unfortunately, the space shuttle program had a few obstacles to overcome in order to reach its full potential, including the tragic loss of the Challenger in January 1986 and Columbia in February 2003.
The first problem was that the original intention for the shuttle was to ferry people and materiel to a space station. Originally, that space station was to be Skylab, but the shuttle was also needed to give Skylab the occasional boost to a higher orbit. Unfortunately, the shuttle's development took longer than expected and Skylab's orbit continued to decay until it crashed back to earth in 1979, two years before Columbia left the launch pad for the first time. By the time the shuttle program got under way in earnest, it was without a destination and instead served as both shuttle and station for orbital experiments. It would not be until the mid-1990s, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, that the shuttle began fulfilling its original mission by making regular visits to Russia's Mir space station and then serving as a heavy lift vehicle for sections of the International Space Station.
In the spring of 1996, I was fortunate enough to witness one of those launches, STS-76, when Atlantis took off to Rendezvous with Mir. The husband of a cousin of my mother's was on the shuttle crew, so my parents and I were included on the guest list and got to watch the pre-dawn launch from the bleachers across the river from the launch pad. The flames from the shuttle's main engines and solid rocket boosters lit up the still dark sky in a spectacular manner. There are no words to adequately describe the experience of seeing a shuttle launch up close and personal. Unless you have experienced the deep roar and felt the vibration of those engines as the shuttle takes to the sky for yourself, you cannot fully comprehend the true extent of its power and majesty.
Seeing Atlantis leave the pad again today, albeit on a 19-inch computer display, brought back memories of that launch and of watching Apollo launches on TV as a child. It was a bittersweet moment as the event was set against the backdrop of NASA's uncertain future.
The International Space Station's mission continues, although it will now be serviced exclusively by Soyuz capsules for the foreseeable future. NASA is reportedly developing a new five-person crew capsule to take astronauts to the space station Apollo style. Supposedly, it may also be the basis of a spacecraft that one day may head to Mars.
It seems ironic to me that the path to the future in space may be marked by a return to our past. Until the eventual end of the shuttle program was announced in 2003, I had always assumed the shuttle would be replaced by a newer, more sophisticated space plane. In retiring the space shuttle, we are also giving up a major technological capability, just as happened when the Apollo lunar missions came to an end and the Concorde supersonic airliner made its final landing. It may make a certain fiscal sense, but that doesn't mean it feels right.
I have to hold onto the hope that humanity's best days in space are still ahead of us. It just remains to be seen whether it's NASA, Russia, or an entrepreneur like Richard Branson who gets us there.
As this chapter in space exploration comes to a close, let us pause to remember the crews of Apollo I and the space shuttles Challenger and Columbia, whose sacrifices have paved our way to the Final Frontier.
*My memory was faulty here. Apollo 11 landed on the moon July 20, 1969, so Atlantis was actually scheduled to return to earth on the anniversary. It would have been a nice bit of symmetry, had it happened as planned; however, the shuttle's final mission was extended by a day. Either way, it was a helluva ride!
I was five years old when Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin set foot on the lunar surface. In fact, the space program was the first news event I remember being aware of and interested in as a child, although I do remember being somewhat irritated when my Saturday morning cartoons were interrupted for live coverage of Alan Shepherd hitting golf balls on the moon. Nonetheless, I was a big astronaut fan. I ate Space Food Sticks, drank Tang, played with my Major Matt Mason toys, and watched Star Trek religiously, considering it a foregone conclusion that the starship Enterprise would someday be a reality.
I also remember feeling very let down when the Apollo lunar missions came to an end in 1972. Somehow Skylab and the Apollo/Soyuz "handshake in space" in the mid-1970s seemed more than a little anti-climactic after exploring the moon. It seemed to me that we should be reaching out even further to Mars and beyond instead of shackling ourselves to low earth orbit.
That future seemed to be within our grasp in the late 1970s, when the first shuttle prototype, the Enterprise, named for TV's most famous starship, rolled out of the hangar to sound of a military band playing the theme from Star Trek while several members of the show's cast looked on. Still, TV continued to stay a few steps ahead of reality.
A couple of years before the space shuttle Enterprise made its debut, another show called Space: 1999 took to the airwaves. Set on a moon that had been blasted out of earth's orbit by massive explosions at a lunar nuclear waste dump, the show depicted what seemed a very realistic view of earth's next logical step in space, a permanent colony on the moon. The Eagle spaceships on that show not only bore the name of the first lunar lander, they looked as though their design could have evolved from the Apollo LEM (Lunar Excursion Module) spacecraft. Unfortunately, that vision of the future also has yet to come to pass.
As the 1980s dawned, so did a new era for America's efforts at manned space exploration. In the spring of 1981, the space shuttle Columbia set off on its maiden voyage, lifting the nation's spirits with it. I remember watching TV coverage of the event and thinking 'I feel good about America again' as the malaise of the post-Vietnam/post-Watergate era seemed to fall away with the solid rocket boosters and external fuel tank. I regarded the concept of a reusable spacecraft as a bold first step toward that starship future. Unfortunately, the space shuttle program had a few obstacles to overcome in order to reach its full potential, including the tragic loss of the Challenger in January 1986 and Columbia in February 2003.
The first problem was that the original intention for the shuttle was to ferry people and materiel to a space station. Originally, that space station was to be Skylab, but the shuttle was also needed to give Skylab the occasional boost to a higher orbit. Unfortunately, the shuttle's development took longer than expected and Skylab's orbit continued to decay until it crashed back to earth in 1979, two years before Columbia left the launch pad for the first time. By the time the shuttle program got under way in earnest, it was without a destination and instead served as both shuttle and station for orbital experiments. It would not be until the mid-1990s, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, that the shuttle began fulfilling its original mission by making regular visits to Russia's Mir space station and then serving as a heavy lift vehicle for sections of the International Space Station.
In the spring of 1996, I was fortunate enough to witness one of those launches, STS-76, when Atlantis took off to Rendezvous with Mir. The husband of a cousin of my mother's was on the shuttle crew, so my parents and I were included on the guest list and got to watch the pre-dawn launch from the bleachers across the river from the launch pad. The flames from the shuttle's main engines and solid rocket boosters lit up the still dark sky in a spectacular manner. There are no words to adequately describe the experience of seeing a shuttle launch up close and personal. Unless you have experienced the deep roar and felt the vibration of those engines as the shuttle takes to the sky for yourself, you cannot fully comprehend the true extent of its power and majesty.
Seeing Atlantis leave the pad again today, albeit on a 19-inch computer display, brought back memories of that launch and of watching Apollo launches on TV as a child. It was a bittersweet moment as the event was set against the backdrop of NASA's uncertain future.
The International Space Station's mission continues, although it will now be serviced exclusively by Soyuz capsules for the foreseeable future. NASA is reportedly developing a new five-person crew capsule to take astronauts to the space station Apollo style. Supposedly, it may also be the basis of a spacecraft that one day may head to Mars.
It seems ironic to me that the path to the future in space may be marked by a return to our past. Until the eventual end of the shuttle program was announced in 2003, I had always assumed the shuttle would be replaced by a newer, more sophisticated space plane. In retiring the space shuttle, we are also giving up a major technological capability, just as happened when the Apollo lunar missions came to an end and the Concorde supersonic airliner made its final landing. It may make a certain fiscal sense, but that doesn't mean it feels right.
I have to hold onto the hope that humanity's best days in space are still ahead of us. It just remains to be seen whether it's NASA, Russia, or an entrepreneur like Richard Branson who gets us there.
As this chapter in space exploration comes to a close, let us pause to remember the crews of Apollo I and the space shuttles Challenger and Columbia, whose sacrifices have paved our way to the Final Frontier.
*My memory was faulty here. Apollo 11 landed on the moon July 20, 1969, so Atlantis was actually scheduled to return to earth on the anniversary. It would have been a nice bit of symmetry, had it happened as planned; however, the shuttle's final mission was extended by a day. Either way, it was a helluva ride!
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
It's All Done with Magnets
For the past year or so, I've been using a Sonicare electric toothbrush. It's an amazing bit of technological kit that blasts plaque away with a brush head that vibrates at ultrasonic frequencies. I had used inexpensive battery toothbrushes for several years prior to acquiring the Sonicare, and I was fascinated to note several significant differences between it and its less expensive counterparts.
The first major difference is the lack of a motor. The other battery toothbrushes I have used have all had a small electric motor, which drives the the head with a simple mechanism that either causes the bristles to oscillate back and forth or spin around.
The Sonicare also oscillates, but there is no motor. The only physical connection between head and handle is the threaded collar that keeps the head in place. Instead of driving the head with the spinning shaft of a motor, this toothbrush uses an electromagnet that reverses polarity several thousand times a second, causing the head to vibrate several thousand times a second. Unlike traditional battery toothbrushes, which will run without a head attached, the Sonicare will not. Its head completes the mechanism.
A secondary advantage to this design is it allows the handle to be a completely sealed unit, ideal for operating in a wet environment like a bathroom--or a mouth. This sealed design continues at the bottom of the handle, where there are no electrical contacts despite the fact that the handle contains rechargeable batteries. Here again, magnetism comes into play as the batteries are charged by a process called magnetic induction. It's not the most efficient design, as it takes almost 24 hours to give the batteries a full charge, but it does facilitate a design where there are no metal contacts to allow leakage or oxidation.
As amazing as this design is, the batteries, two non-replaceable AA size nickle-cadmium (Ni-Cad) cells, are definitely its weak point. I was genuinely surprised the manufacturer, Phillips, opted for lower quality Ni-Cad cells when superior nickel metal hydride (NiMH) cells would have added, at most, a few pennies to the cost of the toothbrush.
The problem with Ni-Cad cells is twofold: They generally have a faster discharge rate than NiMH cells and they develop a 'memory' pattern in which they have a very short operational life between charges if they are charged at frequent intervals without being fully discharged first. To get the best life out of Ni-Cad batteries, they need to have deep cycle charges, which can be achieved by charging the batteries only when they are fully depleted. Fortunately, the Sonicare toothbrush is engineered to maximize battery life by alerting the user when when the batteries need charging by giving a beep and flashing an LED under the power button. While the instructions mention the low battery indicator feature, they don't state specifically that the battery should only be charged when this feature calls for a charge. On average, I have to charge my toothbrush about twice a month.
This is somewhat problematic given that many users will doubtless keep the toothbrush in its charging stand between uses. Over time, this can lead to premature battery failure, which spells the end of the toothbrush's operational life since the sealed handle can't be opened without destroying it.
I believe that NiMH batteries would be more suitable for this application because they hold a charge longer and have much less of a memory effect. I proved the superiority of NiMH batteries to myself a few years ago when the Ni-Cad batteries in my Remington electric razor died on me. Because the outer casing was held together with screws, I took it apart to find conventional AA-sized Ni-Cad batteries with solder tabs inside.
After searching around the Internet, I found a source for the batteries and saw they had both Ni-Cad and NiMH batteries available at virtually the same cost. I opted for the NiMH batteries, soldering them with a minimum of fuss. In the process, I extended the life of the device at about a tenth the cost of replacing it. My replacement batteries outperformed the originals in every way. Not only do they hold a charge longer, but six years later, they are still going strong, whereas the originals only lasted about five years.
Given what I know about these batteries, it boggles my mind that Phillips would choose an inferior battery for an otherwise highly advanced toothbrush. The only rationale that comes to my mind is one of built-in obsolescence in that it's not always in the manufacturer's best interest to let the consumer have too much of a good thing.
Update: 10 December 2011
I was in Target yesterday and saw a new entry level Sonicare model. This one uses conventional AA batteries and sells for the relative bargain price of $20, less than half the price of my Sonicare Essence. Because the batteries are replaceable, you can use either alkalines or rechargeables and you don't have to throw the handle away when the batteries wear out. If I were in the market for a Sonicare today, this model would be on the top of my list, along with some rechargeable NiMH batteries. The brush heads are still frightfully expensive, but at least one would potentially get a longer service life out of the handle.
The first major difference is the lack of a motor. The other battery toothbrushes I have used have all had a small electric motor, which drives the the head with a simple mechanism that either causes the bristles to oscillate back and forth or spin around.
The Sonicare also oscillates, but there is no motor. The only physical connection between head and handle is the threaded collar that keeps the head in place. Instead of driving the head with the spinning shaft of a motor, this toothbrush uses an electromagnet that reverses polarity several thousand times a second, causing the head to vibrate several thousand times a second. Unlike traditional battery toothbrushes, which will run without a head attached, the Sonicare will not. Its head completes the mechanism.
A secondary advantage to this design is it allows the handle to be a completely sealed unit, ideal for operating in a wet environment like a bathroom--or a mouth. This sealed design continues at the bottom of the handle, where there are no electrical contacts despite the fact that the handle contains rechargeable batteries. Here again, magnetism comes into play as the batteries are charged by a process called magnetic induction. It's not the most efficient design, as it takes almost 24 hours to give the batteries a full charge, but it does facilitate a design where there are no metal contacts to allow leakage or oxidation.
As amazing as this design is, the batteries, two non-replaceable AA size nickle-cadmium (Ni-Cad) cells, are definitely its weak point. I was genuinely surprised the manufacturer, Phillips, opted for lower quality Ni-Cad cells when superior nickel metal hydride (NiMH) cells would have added, at most, a few pennies to the cost of the toothbrush.
The problem with Ni-Cad cells is twofold: They generally have a faster discharge rate than NiMH cells and they develop a 'memory' pattern in which they have a very short operational life between charges if they are charged at frequent intervals without being fully discharged first. To get the best life out of Ni-Cad batteries, they need to have deep cycle charges, which can be achieved by charging the batteries only when they are fully depleted. Fortunately, the Sonicare toothbrush is engineered to maximize battery life by alerting the user when when the batteries need charging by giving a beep and flashing an LED under the power button. While the instructions mention the low battery indicator feature, they don't state specifically that the battery should only be charged when this feature calls for a charge. On average, I have to charge my toothbrush about twice a month.
This is somewhat problematic given that many users will doubtless keep the toothbrush in its charging stand between uses. Over time, this can lead to premature battery failure, which spells the end of the toothbrush's operational life since the sealed handle can't be opened without destroying it.
I believe that NiMH batteries would be more suitable for this application because they hold a charge longer and have much less of a memory effect. I proved the superiority of NiMH batteries to myself a few years ago when the Ni-Cad batteries in my Remington electric razor died on me. Because the outer casing was held together with screws, I took it apart to find conventional AA-sized Ni-Cad batteries with solder tabs inside.
After searching around the Internet, I found a source for the batteries and saw they had both Ni-Cad and NiMH batteries available at virtually the same cost. I opted for the NiMH batteries, soldering them with a minimum of fuss. In the process, I extended the life of the device at about a tenth the cost of replacing it. My replacement batteries outperformed the originals in every way. Not only do they hold a charge longer, but six years later, they are still going strong, whereas the originals only lasted about five years.
Given what I know about these batteries, it boggles my mind that Phillips would choose an inferior battery for an otherwise highly advanced toothbrush. The only rationale that comes to my mind is one of built-in obsolescence in that it's not always in the manufacturer's best interest to let the consumer have too much of a good thing.
Update: 10 December 2011
I was in Target yesterday and saw a new entry level Sonicare model. This one uses conventional AA batteries and sells for the relative bargain price of $20, less than half the price of my Sonicare Essence. Because the batteries are replaceable, you can use either alkalines or rechargeables and you don't have to throw the handle away when the batteries wear out. If I were in the market for a Sonicare today, this model would be on the top of my list, along with some rechargeable NiMH batteries. The brush heads are still frightfully expensive, but at least one would potentially get a longer service life out of the handle.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Is TV's Earl working the Twelve Steps?
I've been re-watching one of my favorite sitcoms, My Name is Earl, lately and I've made an interesting observation. It appears the show's protagonist. Earl J. Hickey, a reformed petty thief, drunkard and general ne'er do well, is working his own version of the Twelve Steps, popularized by Alcoholics Anonymous and a host of other recovery groups.
The premise of the series is that Earl is trying to improve his lot in life by making a list of all his past transgressions and making amends for them with the help his not-so-bright brother Randy and a healthy dose of redneck humor.
The first clue that the Twelve Steps might be at the heart of this show's premise can be found in the title. It is customary in Twelve Step recovery groups for members to introduce themselves by first name (e.g., My name is ______ and I'm an alcoholic/addict/gambler/codependent/etc.) but the parallels run much deeper than that. Let's see how Earl's (mis)adventures with his list mesh with the Twelve Steps:
1. Came to the realization we were powerless over alcohol (or some other addiction), that our lives had become unmanageable.
In the pilot episode, Earl comes to a similar conclusion while laying in a hospital bed after being hit by a car only seconds after scratching off a $100,000 lottery ticket, paid for with funds acquired by picking someone's pocket in the men's room. He begins to put the pieces together and realizes his problems just might be his fault
2. Came to believe a power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.
Earl has a similar epiphany while watching an interview show on TV. The host of the show, Carson Daly, mentions his belief in Karma--that if you do good things, good things will happen to you and if you do bad things, bad things will happen to you. Earl buys into this philosophy on the spot and decides if he doesn't change his life, Karma will eventually kill him.
3. Gave our will and our lives over to God as we understood him.
Earl indeed hands his will and his life over to his higher power, which he calls Karma, and dedicates himself full time to righting his past wrongs.
4. Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.
5. Admitted to ourselves, to God, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.
6. Became entirely ready to have God remove these shortcomings
7. Humbly asked God to remove these defects of character.
Earl appears to work steps 4, 5, 6, and 7 in rapid succession during the first episode.
8. Made a list of all people we had harmed and became willing to make amends to them
Earl's list is the very crux of the show's premise.
9. Made amends to such persons, except when to do so would injure them or others.
In each episode, Earl makes amends for one or more of his past transgressions, learning an important life lesson in the process.
10. Continued to take inventory and when were wrong, promptly admitted it.
Like most people in recovery, Earl has the occasional slip, but when this happens, he makes a concerted effort to avoid adding to his karmic debt by making immediate additions to his list and addressing them before the ink is completely dry.
11. Sought through prayer and meditation to achieve a closer contact with our higher power, asking only for a better understanding of his will for us and the power to carry that out.
Earl invests significant time and energy trying to determine what Karma wants him to do next. He is open to all manner of signs and portents and when the appropriate path becomes apparent, he proceeds without hesitation.
12. Having had a spiritual awakening as a result of these steps, we sought to bring the message of Alcoholics Anonymous (or some other 12-step recovery fellowship) to those who still suffer and to practice these principles in all our affairs.
Hilarious as this show is, it quickly becomes obvious to the viewer that Earl's experience is transformative on a spiritual level. He becomes aware of and in tune with his higher power--Karma. While Earl is not shy about explaining his list and his mission to others, he isn't evangelical in his approach. To his credit, he lets others draw their own conclusions about whether it will work for them. In this respect, Earl is clearly following the 11th Tradition of AA, which espouses attraction over promotion. As for the last part, Earl consistently uses his belief in Karma to guide his daily actions. He frequently checks his baser impulses and then acts based on what he believes Karma would have him do.
I have no idea whether the show's creator, Greg Garica, is a member of a Twelve-Step fellowship or whether he consciously modeled Earl's quirky life journey on Twelve Step recovery, but the parallels are too obvious to ignore. Although Earl doesn't attend weekly meetings, pick up chips to mark milestones in his recovery, or sponsor new members, he arguably is working his own, unique, quirky, and hilariously entertaining version of the Twelve Steps. In the process, he is achieving his goal of living a better life. The moral to this story is that the Twelve Steps are for all of us, regardless of the nature of our character defects. Their wisdom is simple, and if applied honestly, they simply work.
The premise of the series is that Earl is trying to improve his lot in life by making a list of all his past transgressions and making amends for them with the help his not-so-bright brother Randy and a healthy dose of redneck humor.
The first clue that the Twelve Steps might be at the heart of this show's premise can be found in the title. It is customary in Twelve Step recovery groups for members to introduce themselves by first name (e.g., My name is ______ and I'm an alcoholic/addict/gambler/codependent/etc.) but the parallels run much deeper than that. Let's see how Earl's (mis)adventures with his list mesh with the Twelve Steps:
1. Came to the realization we were powerless over alcohol (or some other addiction), that our lives had become unmanageable.
In the pilot episode, Earl comes to a similar conclusion while laying in a hospital bed after being hit by a car only seconds after scratching off a $100,000 lottery ticket, paid for with funds acquired by picking someone's pocket in the men's room. He begins to put the pieces together and realizes his problems just might be his fault
2. Came to believe a power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.
Earl has a similar epiphany while watching an interview show on TV. The host of the show, Carson Daly, mentions his belief in Karma--that if you do good things, good things will happen to you and if you do bad things, bad things will happen to you. Earl buys into this philosophy on the spot and decides if he doesn't change his life, Karma will eventually kill him.
3. Gave our will and our lives over to God as we understood him.
Earl indeed hands his will and his life over to his higher power, which he calls Karma, and dedicates himself full time to righting his past wrongs.
4. Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.
5. Admitted to ourselves, to God, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.
6. Became entirely ready to have God remove these shortcomings
7. Humbly asked God to remove these defects of character.
Earl appears to work steps 4, 5, 6, and 7 in rapid succession during the first episode.
8. Made a list of all people we had harmed and became willing to make amends to them
Earl's list is the very crux of the show's premise.
9. Made amends to such persons, except when to do so would injure them or others.
In each episode, Earl makes amends for one or more of his past transgressions, learning an important life lesson in the process.
10. Continued to take inventory and when were wrong, promptly admitted it.
Like most people in recovery, Earl has the occasional slip, but when this happens, he makes a concerted effort to avoid adding to his karmic debt by making immediate additions to his list and addressing them before the ink is completely dry.
11. Sought through prayer and meditation to achieve a closer contact with our higher power, asking only for a better understanding of his will for us and the power to carry that out.
Earl invests significant time and energy trying to determine what Karma wants him to do next. He is open to all manner of signs and portents and when the appropriate path becomes apparent, he proceeds without hesitation.
12. Having had a spiritual awakening as a result of these steps, we sought to bring the message of Alcoholics Anonymous (or some other 12-step recovery fellowship) to those who still suffer and to practice these principles in all our affairs.
Hilarious as this show is, it quickly becomes obvious to the viewer that Earl's experience is transformative on a spiritual level. He becomes aware of and in tune with his higher power--Karma. While Earl is not shy about explaining his list and his mission to others, he isn't evangelical in his approach. To his credit, he lets others draw their own conclusions about whether it will work for them. In this respect, Earl is clearly following the 11th Tradition of AA, which espouses attraction over promotion. As for the last part, Earl consistently uses his belief in Karma to guide his daily actions. He frequently checks his baser impulses and then acts based on what he believes Karma would have him do.
I have no idea whether the show's creator, Greg Garica, is a member of a Twelve-Step fellowship or whether he consciously modeled Earl's quirky life journey on Twelve Step recovery, but the parallels are too obvious to ignore. Although Earl doesn't attend weekly meetings, pick up chips to mark milestones in his recovery, or sponsor new members, he arguably is working his own, unique, quirky, and hilariously entertaining version of the Twelve Steps. In the process, he is achieving his goal of living a better life. The moral to this story is that the Twelve Steps are for all of us, regardless of the nature of our character defects. Their wisdom is simple, and if applied honestly, they simply work.
Friday, February 25, 2011
LibreOffice--Meet the New Office, Same as the Old Office?
I've recently made the jump from OpenOffice.org to LibreOffice. Okay, it's not much of a jump. At this point, it's essentially the same software with a different name. What's important is what's to come in the future.
For those who don't know, LibreOffice was launched last fall when a group of leading OpenOffice.org developers, dissatisfied with Oracle's management of the open source productivity package, decided to jump ship and form their own fork of the software under the banner of The Document Foundation (TDF). Almost immediately, they released a "beta" of LibreOffice, which was little more than a re-branded version of OpenOffice. Likewise, they released a stable version (3.3) at almost the same time OOo 3.3 came out. The beta and initial 3.3 version of LibreOffice even used the same icons as OOo. Version 3.3.1, which came out a week after 3.3.0, had a few stability enhancements and a new set of icons.
So what's the difference? Why would one want to switch from OOo to LibreOffice? To the end user, the differences are indeed subtle and some of them will likely become more apparent as time goes on. LibreOffice developers claim to be cleaning up the source code to remove bits that are no longer needed and are incorporating other third party enhancements, including those found in Novell's Go.oo fork.
The main difference, however, is political. LibreOffice touts its independence from corporate interests as a formula for greater flexibility in determining the priorities and direction for development of the software. This promise has led several key players, including Canonical, the parent company of Ubuntu Linux, to replace OpenOffice with LibreOffice in upcoming versions of its distribution. The degree to which LibreOffice has been embraced can be seen in a recent campaign to raise 50,000 Euros to allow TDF to incorporate as a legal entity in Germany. The campaign was expected to take a month to reach its goal, but they surpassed it in eight days and contributions, many from end users, are still coming in.
As time goes on, it will be interesting to see where TDF takes LibreOffice. It is entirely possible that it will completely break off from OOo as IBM did when it forked OOo 1.x to create Lotus Symphony, which now develops independently of OOo.
They say competition can be good for innovation, and hopefully this is the case with OOo and LibreOffice.
For those who don't know, LibreOffice was launched last fall when a group of leading OpenOffice.org developers, dissatisfied with Oracle's management of the open source productivity package, decided to jump ship and form their own fork of the software under the banner of The Document Foundation (TDF). Almost immediately, they released a "beta" of LibreOffice, which was little more than a re-branded version of OpenOffice. Likewise, they released a stable version (3.3) at almost the same time OOo 3.3 came out. The beta and initial 3.3 version of LibreOffice even used the same icons as OOo. Version 3.3.1, which came out a week after 3.3.0, had a few stability enhancements and a new set of icons.
So what's the difference? Why would one want to switch from OOo to LibreOffice? To the end user, the differences are indeed subtle and some of them will likely become more apparent as time goes on. LibreOffice developers claim to be cleaning up the source code to remove bits that are no longer needed and are incorporating other third party enhancements, including those found in Novell's Go.oo fork.
The main difference, however, is political. LibreOffice touts its independence from corporate interests as a formula for greater flexibility in determining the priorities and direction for development of the software. This promise has led several key players, including Canonical, the parent company of Ubuntu Linux, to replace OpenOffice with LibreOffice in upcoming versions of its distribution. The degree to which LibreOffice has been embraced can be seen in a recent campaign to raise 50,000 Euros to allow TDF to incorporate as a legal entity in Germany. The campaign was expected to take a month to reach its goal, but they surpassed it in eight days and contributions, many from end users, are still coming in.
As time goes on, it will be interesting to see where TDF takes LibreOffice. It is entirely possible that it will completely break off from OOo as IBM did when it forked OOo 1.x to create Lotus Symphony, which now develops independently of OOo.
They say competition can be good for innovation, and hopefully this is the case with OOo and LibreOffice.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
iPod in an older car?
When it comes to technology, I'm a bit of a late adopter. But once I adopt, I jump in with both feet. I just acquired an iPod last summer, a used one at that. Now that I have it, I want to get the most and best possible use out of it, including in the car.
While auxiliary inputs for devices such as iPods are a common feature of today's OEM and aftermarket car radios, my car and its OEM radio were manufactured several years before iPods even existed. In fact, it has a cassette player. My first thought was to dig out a cassette adapter I used to use with a portable CD player, but the noise from the cassette mechanism was almost loud enough to drown out the abysmal sound quality.
Fortunately, there is a better way. I have now installed a wired FM modulator that feeds the iPod audio directly from the headphone jack to the FM antenna. The sound quality is great and the installation was a snap, as long as you're comfortable removing and re-installing your radio to get to the antenna lead. It's not as bad as it sounds--really.
In addition to the modulator itself, you will need a few other parts. If your car uses a standard plug for the antenna, you will need an antenna patch cable to run between the modulator and the radio. If not, you will need a pair of adapter cables. I needed the latter with my car. I connected the male antenna plug into the female end of one adapter, then plugged that into the modulator. The other adapter went between the modulator and the radio. Don't worry, you can't mess this up, since the adapters will only work one way.
Once you've made made the antenna connection, you need to connect to some power. Splice the red wire into the power lead for the radio. You may need to find a wiring diagram online to know which wire to use. Note: some radios have two power leads, one of which is switched through the ignition while the other is constant to maintain the time on the clock. In my car, the switched wire is red and the constant one is yellow. Others may or may not be the same. I'd recommend using the switched one so the device will shut off when you shut the car off, and thus not drain the battery.
I also added a manual shutoff switch so the modulator would not interfere with FM radio reception when I'm not listening to the iPod. I connected the red power wire from the modulator to the switch, then ran another wire from the switch to the power source. The most challenging part was choosing a switch that blended in with the dashboard and deciding where to mount the switch. I finally went with a small, round push-button switch. Once I drilled a hole and installed it, the switch looked like it had always been there.
The black wire is the ground. It just needs to be connected to something metal to complete the circuit. When I re-installed my radio, I just secured the ground wire under one of the mounting screws.
The final wire to connect is an audio cable with a male headphone plug on one end and two male RCA plugs on the other. The RCA plugs connect to the modulator, then you must decide how to route the wire for easy access before you button things up.
The modulator I chose, an Eiger Audio EV-F120, has a digital tuner with which to choose the frequency on which the device transmits. Two buttons allow the user to adjust the frequency up or down. Some other devices use dip switches to select a frequency. Interference from broadcast stations isn't a problem because the device overrides broadcast radio reception when active, thus the need for a manual power switch.
To play the iPod through the radio, connect the iPod to the audio cable, turn the modulator on, and tune the radio to the same frequency as the FM modulator. Now you're ready to go rockin' down the highway!
So what did all this cost? The answer is, surprising little. Modulators cost between $10 and $30. I got mine on the lower end of that spectrum. At the upper end of the price spectrum, Scoche offers a nice unit that includes a power switch and an audio cable that terminate on a surface mount panel that attaches with double-faced tape. The antenna adapters cost around $10 or $15. A power switch can be had for $2 or $3.
While auxiliary inputs for devices such as iPods are a common feature of today's OEM and aftermarket car radios, my car and its OEM radio were manufactured several years before iPods even existed. In fact, it has a cassette player. My first thought was to dig out a cassette adapter I used to use with a portable CD player, but the noise from the cassette mechanism was almost loud enough to drown out the abysmal sound quality.
Fortunately, there is a better way. I have now installed a wired FM modulator that feeds the iPod audio directly from the headphone jack to the FM antenna. The sound quality is great and the installation was a snap, as long as you're comfortable removing and re-installing your radio to get to the antenna lead. It's not as bad as it sounds--really.
In addition to the modulator itself, you will need a few other parts. If your car uses a standard plug for the antenna, you will need an antenna patch cable to run between the modulator and the radio. If not, you will need a pair of adapter cables. I needed the latter with my car. I connected the male antenna plug into the female end of one adapter, then plugged that into the modulator. The other adapter went between the modulator and the radio. Don't worry, you can't mess this up, since the adapters will only work one way.
Once you've made made the antenna connection, you need to connect to some power. Splice the red wire into the power lead for the radio. You may need to find a wiring diagram online to know which wire to use. Note: some radios have two power leads, one of which is switched through the ignition while the other is constant to maintain the time on the clock. In my car, the switched wire is red and the constant one is yellow. Others may or may not be the same. I'd recommend using the switched one so the device will shut off when you shut the car off, and thus not drain the battery.
I also added a manual shutoff switch so the modulator would not interfere with FM radio reception when I'm not listening to the iPod. I connected the red power wire from the modulator to the switch, then ran another wire from the switch to the power source. The most challenging part was choosing a switch that blended in with the dashboard and deciding where to mount the switch. I finally went with a small, round push-button switch. Once I drilled a hole and installed it, the switch looked like it had always been there.
The black wire is the ground. It just needs to be connected to something metal to complete the circuit. When I re-installed my radio, I just secured the ground wire under one of the mounting screws.
The final wire to connect is an audio cable with a male headphone plug on one end and two male RCA plugs on the other. The RCA plugs connect to the modulator, then you must decide how to route the wire for easy access before you button things up.
The modulator I chose, an Eiger Audio EV-F120, has a digital tuner with which to choose the frequency on which the device transmits. Two buttons allow the user to adjust the frequency up or down. Some other devices use dip switches to select a frequency. Interference from broadcast stations isn't a problem because the device overrides broadcast radio reception when active, thus the need for a manual power switch.
To play the iPod through the radio, connect the iPod to the audio cable, turn the modulator on, and tune the radio to the same frequency as the FM modulator. Now you're ready to go rockin' down the highway!
So what did all this cost? The answer is, surprising little. Modulators cost between $10 and $30. I got mine on the lower end of that spectrum. At the upper end of the price spectrum, Scoche offers a nice unit that includes a power switch and an audio cable that terminate on a surface mount panel that attaches with double-faced tape. The antenna adapters cost around $10 or $15. A power switch can be had for $2 or $3.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)