The best phone in the world, until it broke

I didn’t review it on the site, but for about the past 9 months I have been using the Palm Pre phone from Bell.  I loved that phone quite a bit.  It had the form factor I wanted, being a phone with a touch screen and a sliding keyboard, a portrait slider. It also had an innovative operating system, WebOS, that I really enjoy using.  I loved using that phone a lot. But, the Palm Pre had one fatal flaw that has proven too be too much.  The hardware had absolutely terrible quality. In a little over 9 months of use, I had 3 of them break.  On the first unit, the screen actually cracked from bottom to top, and not from being dropped. the headphone jack also stopped working.  Thankfully I purchased warranty on my plan, so I was able to take it into bell and get a different Pre.  The second one lasted another 3 months, and what happened to that was that the touch screen stopped working entirely, making the phone impossible to use.  The third problem, and this happened to me on Monday of this week, was that in the middle of the night the phone rebooted, and never turned back on.

I loved that phone so much, it did absolutely everything I wanted it to do, in the form factor that I wanted.  I’m a huge proponent of Palm’s WebOS operating system. I think it’s significantly better than the iPhone OS, or iOS as apple likes to call it, and I believe it has some great potential.  When I bought that phone I intended on it being a phone I would use for at least 2 years, maybe even 3. Palm was reliable on keeping the software updated, and adding new features, and while small, there were more and more apps being developed every day.

The Pre was plagued with hardware problems at launch. I had heard about this, but didn’t think it would be nearly as bad as it would be.  From what I understand, if you got a good unit, it was solid and never broke. Unfortunately there were far too few of those units that had no problems.  My hope with the first two broken units was that I would replace them with hardware that would not break, and unfortunately that did not happen.  I wanted to make it work, I wanted to keep using the Palm Pre

But the simple fact is that I cannot keep using a phone that dies on average every 3 months.  Especially when it breaks completely and I can’t get a replacement phone immediately. For me my phone is my central communication device. Phone calls, voicemail, email, twitter, Facebook, and pretty much any way possible to communicate with me get funneled through my phone.  I’ve become far too dependant on it to have something that breaks all the time. Whether that’s actually a good thing or not is an entire other issue for another time.

Monday afternoon I went to a bell store and purchased a Samsung Galaxy S Vibrant. This phone just came out on Bell, and is a 4” touch screen Android phone.  After 4 days of use I can say that I really love this phone. Is it as good as the Pre, I’m not sure yet.  There are a few things I miss about the Pre, and some things I really love that the Pre didn’t have.  I’m going to be doing a full review of the phone in the coming days.  The real test will be about 3 months from now. If it doesn’t break by then, it’ll be a success.

The school closure debate

Ok, so I know I haven't posted a real blog post in a very long time.  And I'm not going to promise that I'll do it more regularly, because I seem to go in spurts, but today, I have something I need to get off my chest, and 140 characters just won't do.

There has been much debate in recent weeks about school closures.  It is, obviously, a very sensitive subject for many people. Quite frankly, I do not have kids, nor do I live near a school that is marked for closure.  That also means I am not affected by the handful of new schools that are being built and opening soon.  But I cannot escape getting involved in this debate, because it's been everywhere.  Closing schools is a terrible situation, and I really, really hope the school board makes the right decision, but there is so much more to this situation than is really even known by anyone, including me.  It does not help that there have basically been propganda campaigns by both sides, and that both of those campaigns are filled with misinformation and trying to make the other side look bad.  It's like an election, just on a significantly smaller scale.

There are really 3 sides to this issue. The school board, people near the schools that are closing, and people near the schools that are opening.  Each have their own agendas, and none of them are compatible.  There is simply no way to make everyone happy, and it will probably make it more difficult for everyone.

The school board is faced with a simple reality.  A school that is designed to hold 500 students, but only has 100 enrolled, is simply not sustainable.  The amount of funding a school gets is based on the number of students it has, and the math is simple.  A school takes a fixed amount of money to run per year. Electricity, heating, maintenance costs, etc, all come out of the school's budget.  Many people argue that schools that are filled to capacity still dont' have enough funds for the classroom, how do you expect a school that's spending almost their entire budget on keeping the building running to survive?  It's a grim reality, but it's reality nevertheless.  It simply is not possible to run a school with such low enrollment.

The families that live near these schools are clearly devastated by the possibility that the schools will be closed.  And they should be.  I cannot imagine what that would have done to me if the school that I was going to closed while I was still going there.  It is truly truly sad that these people have to go through this, and I do not blame them at all for fighting to keep the schools open, I would be doing the exact same thing.  I just fear that the numbers are not on their side.

The third, and least talked about group, are people living in the suburbs of the city, and demanding schools be built to accommodate them.  This is more an issue of urban sprawl, which an entire different topic in itself, and one I won't get into as much in this post.  But the most common argument I have heard from people living in the newest neighbourhoods is that they don't want their kids busing for an hour a day to get to school.  I will say, that's a very vaild argument.  When I was growing up, I lived no more than a 10 minute walk away from my elementry and jr. high schools, and a 30 minute walk from my high school.  It would have sucked to have to take the bus for a couple of hours a day.  Of that there is no doubt.  And I can see why these people would like schools to be closer to them.  The problem is that most of the people who are moving into these neighbourhoods are younger people who are just starting families.  In my opinion, if thse people want to start a family and live close to a school, then they should be moving to a neighbourhood that is actually near a school, not moving as far away from the city core as they can, and then demanding the city and province spend tens of millions of dollars to build a school for you.  I totally get that they want to live in a newer neighbourhood, and many want to live in their dream house, but sometimes you can't have it both ways.  This is a huge reason why schools near the center of the city have low enrollment.  People are not willing to move into these neighbourhoods and there are fewer families there.  I know that this is not something that the people who love outside the center of the city are trying to do, but the fact that they chose to live so far away from existing schools is in many ways directly responsible for the difficulty that the school board faces now.  Again, this is more of a urban sprawl debate, and that is a massive problem in the city, but that isn't what I want to get into here.

Either way, the Edmonton Public School Board faces an impossible decision today.  Closing schools is never the first option, and I know that they will look at every option and do whatever they can to keep those schools open, as having schools in the center of the city is very important, but at the end of the day, the numbers simply might not support it.  Tomorrow morning, there will be very few happy people, and many angry people will be featured on the news.  I just hope that people remember that the end of the day, the school board is doing the best job it can with the situation it has been given, both directly and indirectly, by the public.

EAVB_DXKFNSFMTP

Why Windows Vista Failed, and why you have no one to blame but yourself - Part 3

This is the conclusion of the three part series about Windows Vista, for parts 1 and 2, click here and here.

In 2001, Windows XP was released to the world. At the time, it was Microsoft's best operating system release. Windows Vista improved on it in nearly every way. Let me say that again. Windows Vista improved on it in nearly every way. The biggest problem with Vista was the high barrier to entry, however, it was no more higher than the barrier to entry Windows XP faced in 2001. As I wrote previously, we were spoiled by lower hardware costs, and the fact that running Windows XP on cheap hardware from 2006 was akin to running Windows 95 on hardware from 2001. It could be run very well on very cheap hardware. In 2009, pretty much every computer except for the netbook class computer can run Windows Vista very well, and this is where Vista truly shines.

Many of the technologies that make Windows Vista so good are beyond the scope of this article, so I will concentrate on the features that the end user will see.

The first, and most useful, is start menu search. Windows XP had the add-on Wnidows Desktop Search software for years, however it was slow, not integrated into the OS, and in my opinion, just plain not useful. In my experience, it actually slows down a Windows XP PC quite a bit. Windows Desktop Search 4.0 for Windows XP did address some of those issues, but the simple fact is that Windows XP was never meant to have a built in quick desktop search application, and using an application like Windows Desktop Search or Google Desktop really highlights that deficiency. Windows Vista was designed with the instant search built in. This instant search, appearing in the start menu, allows you to quickly find applications, documents, even specific email if you use outlook. simply hit the start menu, or press the windows key on your keyboard, and start typing. Usually the first few characters of the application is enough for what you are looking for to appear. Type "word" and Microsoft Word will be the first result. You can even search for a particular document, and open it directly. Start menu search has many more functions, but at it's core it is used as a fast way to launch a document. Ever since my first experience with the beta of Windows Vista way back in early 2005, it has been my preferred way of launching applications. I truthfully rarely even go into "All Programs" in Windows anymore, as start menu search is a much faster and more efficient way of getting to where I need to go.

Speaking of the start menu, it received an overhaul for Windows Vista as well. Gone is the word "Start" present in every version of windows since late 1994. Also gone is the multi-column all programs menu. Instead going into all programs places the menu in a scrolling list in the left side of the start menu. As someone who regularly dealt with 2, 3, sometimes 4 columns of applications in Windows XP, this change is welcome for the few times I need to go into all programs. Other changes are more minor, but appreciated, including more streamlined access to the networking section of Windows, and more.

The second feature, which is arguably the single most important feature of Windows Vista, and remains integral in Windows 7, is User Account Control(UAC). Windows Vista represented a fundamental shift in how Windows handles user accounts and security. In every Windows version up to, and including, Windows XP, a normal user ran as a system administrator, meaning that the user has unrestricted access to the computer, and can make any change without prompt. The "limited account" option that existed in XP was an attempt to stop this, but in reality the limited account was so restricted a user could not really do many day-to-day applications with Windows. This method of user accounts remains the single biggest security vulnerability in Windows XP, even after 3 service packs and hundreds of security updates. Many types of malware take easy advantage of the fact that that they can make changes to Windows, install applications and services, and generally have their run of the operating system. Windows Vista changed all that. Instead of operating with unlimited permissions, all accounts, even computer administrators, operate under the principle of least privilege. This means that a user runs as a limited user, and when a change is made that requires administrator access, UAC will display a prompt. A computer administrator may simply click continue, and a standard user must enter an administrator password to continue. This ensures that no operating system changes are made without the user's knowledge, and any changes that are made are done so as a direct result of user interaction. This is the security model that UNIX and linux based operating systems have been based off for decades, and what Apple as adopted for OS X, which is UNIX based, back in 2001. UAC in Vista is not perfect, and many people feel that it prompts too many times. This is partially true, however, many people turned UAC off because of this, and they really shouldn't. UAC is the biggest piece of the security puzzle in Vista, and while turning off may add some convenience to using Windows Vista, it is much more open to attacks. After Windows Vista is set up, and most of the users applications are installed, UAC is much less obtrusive, because 99% of the day to day operations of Windows do not require elevated permissions. UAC is also much improved in Windows 7, with the same security as in Vista, but with far fewer prompts.

Windows Vista also introduced Aero. The Aero desktop is the visible component of the Windows Presentation Foundation, which was a complete re-write of the Windows User Interface. the new UI design allows for Windows to use more advanced graphics effects, such as transparent windows, the "glass" look of the windows, live window previews, and new transition effects between Windows. Many skeptics of Aero in Windows Vista say it was nothing more than an attempt to make Windows Vista look "pretty" and did not offer any real benefits. On the surface, this is actually true. However, like many things in Windows Vista, the underlying system was completely re-written, and Windows Vista represented the growing pain, and Microsoft implementing a brand new system for it's user interface. The truly advanced elements possible in Aero are evident in Windows 7. Going from Windows XP, to Windows Vista, and up to Windows 7, it is very easy to see how Windows Vista is the stepping stone, and many of the advancements in Windows Vista are taken and improved upon in Windows 7.

These are just a few of the changes in Windows Vista. As I have stated, Windows Vista represents a change that was as big, if not bigger, than the leap from Windows 3.1 to Windows 95. Many of the changes are good changes, and many of the changes represent brand new ideas for Microsoft. For that, Windows Vista will fall in place as a transitional operating system. Is it perfect? No. There are many things in Vista that drive me crazy. But I do not let those things detract from what is otherwise a very solid operating system from Microsoft.

If I had written this 6 months ago, Windows Vista would have gotten a 100% recommendation from me. In fact, 6 months ago, I was urging people who were considering buying a new computer, but afraid because of the stigma of Vista, to upgrade. Very few people that I know that have purchased a new PC with Windows Vista on it have told me they dislike it. Give Vista a chance, a real chance, and you will generally be surprised with how good it is. However, with the release of Windows 7 just 2 months away, there truly is no point. Buying a new PC today will come with Windows Vista, but many will come with a free upgrade to Windows 7 anyway. I have no qualms telling people to run Vista, but cannot recommend people buy a new computer right now. Wait until Windows 7, and buy a new computer with the new operating system. In many ways, it is a shame, because many people will never really know just how good Windows Vista is, and how it provided the critical stepping stone to Windows 7, which is being regarded as the best release of Windows ever. So, as you move on to Windows 7, know that at it's core, you are using the technology of Windows Vista, and working day to day with everything Vista had to offer.

Windows Vista failed, and you have no one to blame but yourself – Part 2

This is part 2 of my article about Windows Vista, and why it failed, and why it shouldn’t have.  For part one, click Here.

Author’s note:  Part 2 had originally been intended to be an article about what makes Windows Vista a good operating system. That will now be featured in part 3.

there were nearly 4.5 years between the release of Windows XP and Windows Vista.  That is an eternity in the world of technology, and because of that, many things had changed.  Windows Vista is very much a reflection of that change.

Many of the changes going from Windows XP to Windows Vista are very technical, things I will not get into in this article.  But suffice it to say, that except for the name, and the mostly familiar feel, they are very different operating systems.  Windows XP was created in the age before most people had high speed internet, before twitter, before Facebook, before Myspace.  Windows XP comes from a time before Social networking.  When XP came out, Google was not the biggest search engine in the world.  It sat at least behind AOL search.  Windows XP launched within a month of the very first iPod. In 2001, fewer than 50% of the people in North America owned a cell phone.  The 5 most popular pop music artists/groups in 2001 were, in order:  Destiny’s Child, Jennifer Lopez, Janet Jackson, ‘N Sync, and the Backstreet Boys.  America went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq between releases.  As you can see, XP seems to come from an era of our past.

In the time between Windows XP and windows Vista, many things changed.  Computers became infinitely more powerful, and less expensive.  The internet became almost as common of a utility as having a phone line.  People used their computers in an entirely different way in 2006 than they did in 2001.

With those differences, came the challenges.  With the proliferation of the internet, so too came the proliferation of security vulnerabilities.  Windows XP was actually designed in the late 1990’s.  XP was built off of Windows 2000, which actually came out in late 1999.  Windows 2000 and XP, by design, let the user do whatever they may want without their computer without any difficulty.  The reason for this is that the largest concept of security in the late 90’s revolved around someone gaining physical access to a computer to compromise it, so less attention was paid to security.  As the internet grew, more and more computers were connected.  XP’s mentality of giving a user full access to everything on the system was it’s largest downfall.  This meant that it was very, very easy for a program downloaded from the internet to compromise a computer, because it could run even without the user knowing.  There were little to no safeguards.  Windows XP, the most stable Microsoft operating system at the time, was severely vulnerable to attacks from the internet.  And despite all of Microsoft’s best efforts, to this day, that is still true.  It is simply the way the operating system was designed.

In the internet age, it became clear that Windows had to change.  Many of the technologies at the core of Windows XP were actually first designed in the early 1990’s.  That simply would not cut it anymore.  A newer, safer, and more secure Windows was needed.  Windows Vista was the result of that.  Microsoft nearly re-wrote the entire operating system.  Many, many elements were changed.  Many of the things that were done in Windows Vista were brand new to Windows, represented a radical change for Microsoft in not only how Windows worked, but how the company made windows.

In many ways, Windows Vista is the operating system that was a proof of concept for many new things, and because of that suffered many growing pains.  In many years when we look back at Windows, we will see Windows Vista as the beginning of a new type of operating system for Microsoft, and the release that began the transition of Windows from an operating system built for a personal computer, and an operating system built for the internet connected person.

In part 3, I will discuss what Vista actually brings to the table that is better than XP, and how it is the foundation for the upcoming Windows 7.

Windows Vista failed, and you have no one to blame but yourself

As Microsoft prepares Windows 7 for release this October, I wanted to take a look back at Windows Vista. Windows Vista is the most stable, most secure, and has the most innovations of any operating system Microsoft has ever made. It is also their second biggest failure(the ill conceived Windows ME holds that distinction). The launch of Windows Vista was a Marketing disaster for Microsoft, and for the next year, it continued to receive bad PR. There are several reasons for this, some of which can be blamed on Microsoft, but the majority of which cannot. Instead of focusing on those points, I am going to focus on the complaints that I have heard over the years about Vista.

1. My Printer, scanner, or [insert other piece of hardware here] doesn't work in Vista.

This is, in my opinion, one of the top 2 reasons why people complained about Windows Vista. This, however, is something that is only partially Microsof's fault. Now, without getting too technical, the reason why this happened is that Microsoft changed the architecture for drivers in Windows. Now, a driver is essentially the software that allows your windows to work with the printer, scanner, mouse, iPod, anything. What this meant, was that for a lot of peripherals, the manufacturer, not Microsoft, was responsible for creating that driver. What many companies, printer companies especially, decided to do was not create those drivers for older printers. This was a business decision designed to get consumers to buy a new device.

The overall question though, is that is this a good thing? Again, without getting too technical, the changes that Microsoft made in the way drivers need to work were good changes. They unfortunately come with growing pains. Now, 2.5 years after Windows Vista launched, everything works just fine with it. And Windows 7 uses the same, improved driver model, so essentially everything that works with Windows Vista will also work with Windows 7.

The third party companies that make the hardware are the ones that are responsible for not supporting Windows Vista. Now, I fully admit that for them to support Windows Vista for devices that were, in some cases, 6-7 years old would have cost them a lot of money. They would have to allocate people and resources to create drivers for printers that no one in the company had supported for years. The return on investment for doing that likely would have been too small to justify the cost. However, that did not change the fact that when the average consumer bought a new computer with Windows Vista, and their printer did not work, they were un happy.

Overall, I'm going to call this a draw. Microsoft and the third parties were both justified in their decisions, and in the end, it did affect the customer. An unpleasant, but necessary growing pain for Windows.

2. Vista runs very slowly on my 4 year old computer, or the $800 computer I just bought runs vista very slowly

This issue has largely disappeared recently. Back in 2006, the consumer world had grown accustomed to a $700-$800 PC running Windows XP well. However, in early 2007, when Vista became available to consumers, windows XP was over 5 years old. even low end PC hardware in 2006 was significantly more powerful than what was a high end computer in 2001. Unfortunately, the consumer has been conditioned that they should be able to buy a computer for $700, and have it run well. In 2006, that was simply not the case, nor should it be. Windows Vista is a modern, advanced operating system that offered numerous improvements over XP. That's not to say it was perfect. It does have problems, even today. But to expect an new operating system to run on either hardware that was 4-5 years old, or on a computer made as cheaply as possible, is not fair to Microsoft.

Both of these reasons are the main contributors as to why Windows Vista received such a bad reputation at launch. There are other reasons, such as Apple's relentless ads against them, the emergence of netbooks, which Windows Vista does not run well on, and many businesses not moving to Vista. In part 2 of this article, I will discuss why people should be using Vista, and why it is so good.