There are so many fanatics on all sides. I understand enthusiasm but fanaticism really hurts everyone.
I continue to see how Google has virtually saved humanity by offering their products for free and not asking anything in return. It amuses me.
Google put together Chrome for one good reason--to sell services. Yes, you can use it to view web pages but they really want your business to work through Chrome to make documents and spreadsheets and whatnot through their web-based applications. Services are cash-worthy, as is advertising. Google is a business, not a philanthropy.
I still remember how Google were turning dissidents over to the Chinese government, as were Yahoo! I suppose those actions will always remind me that some people favour business over life any day. I'm not an activist but I value people's lives.
Google often engages up-and-coming developers in their "Summer of Code". It's good for the community, but they also get free help and new ideas. Since they engender the trust of so many, they help themselves to code which would otherwise cost them money to create. That also saves them human resources to work on projects which do bring money to the company.
If there is one positive thing Google has done, it's done something to erode Microsoft's grip on the world. It currently appears that Android is displacing Windows as the sloppy operating system that is widely used--what I used to call the 65% solution. (Microsoft's developers spent 100% of their time working on 65% of the problem, leaving people to fend for themselves and work through the problems.) Android's problems are rather widely known and developers attempt to work through them, supporting device after device incrementally because the hardware abstraction isn't very good. Pity the poor developer struggling with the angry customers because their software doesn't work on some device.
I really thought that Android 4.x would be a great fix for the mess, but apparently, it isn't. What's more, Android versions 2.3.3-2.3.7 is still in use by a rather large group of active users. I suspect the LG Optimus One (and now 2) and variants were quite the success, given that the price was about the same as a high end feature phone.
I'd love for businesses to become the salvation of humanity but I suspect that they will not because they're--businesses.
Thursday, June 13, 2013
Monday, June 10, 2013
WWDC -- iOS 7 -- 1984 is back!!
I'm both shocked and amused at the visual changes to iOS with version 7.
The technical changes are of more interest to me, but I was rather shocked looking at the revisions to what is usually eye candy. It feels as though the original Macintosh operating system interface has been given a renewed life. Back in 1984, we had a white with black interface, but iOS 7 is getting a white with colour interface, for whatever reason.
After seeing it, I can say that it's not blue and it's not silver/brushed metal/whatever. The huge emphasis on blue since the original Mac OS X public beta in 2000 drove me mad. If you're going to use a colour, use one that I want. i.e., make it flexible to my whim. However, Apple only once was ready to give us that ability and they pulled it away from us after displaying it--Themes in Mac OS 8.x.
Monday's announcement and images show us something different. They said that they ran out of green felt for Game Center. Okay, we get it, you didn't like trying to mirror real life because it would only be a pale (or perhaps, over-saturated) comparison.
The variety of colour in the latest screenshots make me wonder if Apple will be supplying iPhone in multiple colours to match iPod touch. What I've seen doesn't seem completely good with the current black or white phone bodies but might be considered sufficient with a variety of colours, and black and white.
I read that Apple put their marketing people in charge of the new icons somehow. I thought that they either hired the laid-off Nokia artists who made the child-like icons for their phones prior to Windows Phone or Apple copied elementary school children's art work. They've said that it's a work in progress. The last time I remember knowing marketing people who were in charge, our product was named Computron 7000. Never, ever let marketing people do anything unattended!
I'm not sure about the rest. Control Center sounds good but how do they know what we need and will it be flexible? I don't care for their calculator, so if it cannot be replaced, I'm probably going to go to mine. I already have a flash light app, so I could go to that also. My point is that Apple, in their desire to provide the best experience (and that's important) for the majority of the people, don't always get it right but they, and we have to live with their decisions.
I'm thrilled that they've figured out how to put more things in a folder 6 years later. It feels a bit like they're making the same mistakes over and over and over again, from Apple II to Mac OS to Mac OS X to iOS. It's good that they've re-worked Notifications. I'm still getting notifications hours later, after I've seen them and dismissed them. I may be assuming too much, but I'm guessing that iOS 6 will never be fixed. I wonder if iOS 7 will just give us a new nightmare.
This might sound incredibly negative. I'm actually pleased that they're making progress but adding things like multi-tasking for all apps, support for game sprites in 2D games, and an official set of APIs for physical game controllers. I'm thinking that Steve Jobs and Scott Forstall stood in the way of functionality. I'm with Steve Jobs that the customer should have a great experience, and the user interface needs to be honed, but without progress, you will find your competition winning at something you hold dear.
Update 2013.09.25: I've had iOS 7 on my phone since two days ago. It really reminds me of the early Macintosh days when everything was white and black, but with a bit of color added. Of course, flat means that graphics can be rendered more quickly than detailed, more 3D graphics can be. Also, ending the fuzzy green card table look in Game Center or the leather-bound calendar or the notepaid with poor perforations helps to make things go more quickly.
The experience is better and will eventually be smooth once version 7.1 is out, but it looks like crap on my iPhone 4S. It looks like the first release of software, not the seventh version. The slide down notifications works a bit better and the slide up Control Center is somewhat convenient. However, the grab and pull down method of getting a search window seems inconsistent. Funny, I complained about all the blue and now, it's all the white. It's like a device they'd designed for the movie THX-1138.
The technical changes are of more interest to me, but I was rather shocked looking at the revisions to what is usually eye candy. It feels as though the original Macintosh operating system interface has been given a renewed life. Back in 1984, we had a white with black interface, but iOS 7 is getting a white with colour interface, for whatever reason.
After seeing it, I can say that it's not blue and it's not silver/brushed metal/whatever. The huge emphasis on blue since the original Mac OS X public beta in 2000 drove me mad. If you're going to use a colour, use one that I want. i.e., make it flexible to my whim. However, Apple only once was ready to give us that ability and they pulled it away from us after displaying it--Themes in Mac OS 8.x.
Monday's announcement and images show us something different. They said that they ran out of green felt for Game Center. Okay, we get it, you didn't like trying to mirror real life because it would only be a pale (or perhaps, over-saturated) comparison.
The variety of colour in the latest screenshots make me wonder if Apple will be supplying iPhone in multiple colours to match iPod touch. What I've seen doesn't seem completely good with the current black or white phone bodies but might be considered sufficient with a variety of colours, and black and white.
I read that Apple put their marketing people in charge of the new icons somehow. I thought that they either hired the laid-off Nokia artists who made the child-like icons for their phones prior to Windows Phone or Apple copied elementary school children's art work. They've said that it's a work in progress. The last time I remember knowing marketing people who were in charge, our product was named Computron 7000. Never, ever let marketing people do anything unattended!
I'm not sure about the rest. Control Center sounds good but how do they know what we need and will it be flexible? I don't care for their calculator, so if it cannot be replaced, I'm probably going to go to mine. I already have a flash light app, so I could go to that also. My point is that Apple, in their desire to provide the best experience (and that's important) for the majority of the people, don't always get it right but they, and we have to live with their decisions.
I'm thrilled that they've figured out how to put more things in a folder 6 years later. It feels a bit like they're making the same mistakes over and over and over again, from Apple II to Mac OS to Mac OS X to iOS. It's good that they've re-worked Notifications. I'm still getting notifications hours later, after I've seen them and dismissed them. I may be assuming too much, but I'm guessing that iOS 6 will never be fixed. I wonder if iOS 7 will just give us a new nightmare.
This might sound incredibly negative. I'm actually pleased that they're making progress but adding things like multi-tasking for all apps, support for game sprites in 2D games, and an official set of APIs for physical game controllers. I'm thinking that Steve Jobs and Scott Forstall stood in the way of functionality. I'm with Steve Jobs that the customer should have a great experience, and the user interface needs to be honed, but without progress, you will find your competition winning at something you hold dear.
Update 2013.09.25: I've had iOS 7 on my phone since two days ago. It really reminds me of the early Macintosh days when everything was white and black, but with a bit of color added. Of course, flat means that graphics can be rendered more quickly than detailed, more 3D graphics can be. Also, ending the fuzzy green card table look in Game Center or the leather-bound calendar or the notepaid with poor perforations helps to make things go more quickly.
The experience is better and will eventually be smooth once version 7.1 is out, but it looks like crap on my iPhone 4S. It looks like the first release of software, not the seventh version. The slide down notifications works a bit better and the slide up Control Center is somewhat convenient. However, the grab and pull down method of getting a search window seems inconsistent. Funny, I complained about all the blue and now, it's all the white. It's like a device they'd designed for the movie THX-1138.
Saturday, June 8, 2013
WWDC Monday: turning 2012 obsolete
We all know it's coming as soon as we buy something: it's turning obsolete as soon as it has been released.
A car depreciates the moment you sign the paperwork and drive off the lot. An electronic gadget starts toward obsolescence the moment it arrives in the real world and can be bought. Even humans and other living things start to decay after they're born--we live to die.
So, it's no mystery that once new laptop computers are revealed by Apple at WWDC on Monday, mine will be the previous generation. Oh, no!
As I had said when Apple released the first MacBook Air, the company would develop all of their laptop computers in a similar form for the long term. They've accomplished some of that but they're still holding on to an earlier type. I suspect it won't be until 2014 when they cut all ties to past laptop computer designs that are still current at this moment.
More than that, they desperately need to replace the Mac Pro--the tower-encased work horse created for the most professional pursuits of creativity. Will they still have Xeon processors? These processors have kept the price abnormally high, but have kept the performance equally high. Will they be replaced with simpler, 8 core i7 processors?
I believe they must. Apple have been working toward more reasonable pricing lately. No, they aren't going into budget-class territory. There is no reason to fight for the bottom end. However, they can bring more power at a lower price.
Intel boasts the Haswell series of Core i processors as being less needy for power. Certainly, whole systems seem too needy, especially when it comes to graphics hardware. We've gone from 300 watt power supplies to much more than 650 watt requirements for many middle class graphics cards fit to a system. As the CPU becomes less thirsty, will the GPU just soak up the rest?
When the various Macs were using G4 processors, they needed very little energy to survive, in contrast to the Pentium 4. Even the PowerPC G5 wasn't incredibly ravenous. It would be good to see a laptop computer that supposedly can last 7 hours on battery last more than 12.
I was reading something about nVidia's 600 series GPUs being re-badged with higher numbers for 2013. Whatever Apple decides to use, I'm sure they'll be somewhat more powerful, but careful to conserve battery life. The 650M graphics hardware in my machine can drain the battery so much faster than the Intel HD 4000 hardware, but then, there is so much difference in performance. The HD 4000 uses less juice, but is it nearly as efficient? I'd think it isn't. Intel bought a third rate graphics hardware company to "help" the industry and they haven't really made a lot of progress with it. It's still quite laughable. How AMD/ATI and nVidia continue to dominate without tripping over the patents of each other is amazing.
So, when Monday afternoon (GMT-4) arrives at 13:00, will I cringe that my computer has suddenly shifted into the past? No, it's quite powerful and will be after any announcement. It's all perspective, of course. If you live for tomorrow, you'll miss today.
I've seen the details now and I suspect that my MacBook Pro is safe--there was no replacement today. The MacBook Air people should be feeling the strain, as those machines were given the newest Ultra Low Voltage (ULV) Haswell processors. The battery life on the bigger machine has improved to a rated 12 hours. It's not as good as I would have expected but it's very good. Once the new (Mac) OS X arrives in autumn, that should help also.
Speaking of which, OS X Mavericks is the first Apple operating system to make me smile for a while. They've actually been working on the functionality, instead of spending most of their time on eye candy.
Virtual Memory has long been a problem for Mac OS X. Considering that Mac OS X has had its roots in the Mach (micro-)kernel project and BSD UNIX, it's a wonder that Virtual Memory would have ever been a problem. The various BSD-based operating systems (OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD) have been really stable.
Apple, in their infinite wisdom, thought that they could fix the world with an enhancement and it's been hell ever since. I used to be a PowerMac user with the fastest (Ultra) SCSI hard drives and the virtual memory swapping was always at the wrong time. I suppose for most people using a web browser and e-mail client, it wasn't a problem. However, I've been at the edge of free memory far too often--even on my newest machine with 16 GB of RAM.
I'm hoping that this new Memory Compression technique will put things right. It says a lot about processor power when they can do such a thing. Back when the Motorola 68000 series processors were new, virtual memory was something only big business machines would do. Motorola came out with an add-on that allowed virtual memory, but when you consider how slow all of the components were, it was much better to limit memory space to available RAM--16 MB or 4 GB. Of course, the 16 MB limit of the 68000 was rarely used. It was more likely restricted to 4 MB by an artificial limit.
Replacing the networking hardware was an expected change, as they were a bit behind the times already. It's not that everyone has been running to stores to find 802.11ac (Gigabit WiFi) equipment, but the major vendors already have it out there.
In any case, Apple are finally pushing toward the future again, having put it on pause earlier.
Update 2013.07.21: Apple are in the middle of a Back-to-School clearance, so there is no new iPhone, iPod touch, Mac Book Pro, etc. until supplies are exhausted. I suppose it's good for all involved but once a year changes aren't really enough to keep up with other companies. I thought that Apple were trying to be more flexible. Hopefully, they'll also have enough displays for a high density iPad mini, but I wouldn't bet on anything, given all the delays.
A car depreciates the moment you sign the paperwork and drive off the lot. An electronic gadget starts toward obsolescence the moment it arrives in the real world and can be bought. Even humans and other living things start to decay after they're born--we live to die.
So, it's no mystery that once new laptop computers are revealed by Apple at WWDC on Monday, mine will be the previous generation. Oh, no!
As I had said when Apple released the first MacBook Air, the company would develop all of their laptop computers in a similar form for the long term. They've accomplished some of that but they're still holding on to an earlier type. I suspect it won't be until 2014 when they cut all ties to past laptop computer designs that are still current at this moment.
More than that, they desperately need to replace the Mac Pro--the tower-encased work horse created for the most professional pursuits of creativity. Will they still have Xeon processors? These processors have kept the price abnormally high, but have kept the performance equally high. Will they be replaced with simpler, 8 core i7 processors?
I believe they must. Apple have been working toward more reasonable pricing lately. No, they aren't going into budget-class territory. There is no reason to fight for the bottom end. However, they can bring more power at a lower price.
Intel boasts the Haswell series of Core i processors as being less needy for power. Certainly, whole systems seem too needy, especially when it comes to graphics hardware. We've gone from 300 watt power supplies to much more than 650 watt requirements for many middle class graphics cards fit to a system. As the CPU becomes less thirsty, will the GPU just soak up the rest?
When the various Macs were using G4 processors, they needed very little energy to survive, in contrast to the Pentium 4. Even the PowerPC G5 wasn't incredibly ravenous. It would be good to see a laptop computer that supposedly can last 7 hours on battery last more than 12.
I was reading something about nVidia's 600 series GPUs being re-badged with higher numbers for 2013. Whatever Apple decides to use, I'm sure they'll be somewhat more powerful, but careful to conserve battery life. The 650M graphics hardware in my machine can drain the battery so much faster than the Intel HD 4000 hardware, but then, there is so much difference in performance. The HD 4000 uses less juice, but is it nearly as efficient? I'd think it isn't. Intel bought a third rate graphics hardware company to "help" the industry and they haven't really made a lot of progress with it. It's still quite laughable. How AMD/ATI and nVidia continue to dominate without tripping over the patents of each other is amazing.
So, when Monday afternoon (GMT-4) arrives at 13:00, will I cringe that my computer has suddenly shifted into the past? No, it's quite powerful and will be after any announcement. It's all perspective, of course. If you live for tomorrow, you'll miss today.
I've seen the details now and I suspect that my MacBook Pro is safe--there was no replacement today. The MacBook Air people should be feeling the strain, as those machines were given the newest Ultra Low Voltage (ULV) Haswell processors. The battery life on the bigger machine has improved to a rated 12 hours. It's not as good as I would have expected but it's very good. Once the new (Mac) OS X arrives in autumn, that should help also.
Speaking of which, OS X Mavericks is the first Apple operating system to make me smile for a while. They've actually been working on the functionality, instead of spending most of their time on eye candy.
Virtual Memory has long been a problem for Mac OS X. Considering that Mac OS X has had its roots in the Mach (micro-)kernel project and BSD UNIX, it's a wonder that Virtual Memory would have ever been a problem. The various BSD-based operating systems (OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD) have been really stable.
Apple, in their infinite wisdom, thought that they could fix the world with an enhancement and it's been hell ever since. I used to be a PowerMac user with the fastest (Ultra) SCSI hard drives and the virtual memory swapping was always at the wrong time. I suppose for most people using a web browser and e-mail client, it wasn't a problem. However, I've been at the edge of free memory far too often--even on my newest machine with 16 GB of RAM.
I'm hoping that this new Memory Compression technique will put things right. It says a lot about processor power when they can do such a thing. Back when the Motorola 68000 series processors were new, virtual memory was something only big business machines would do. Motorola came out with an add-on that allowed virtual memory, but when you consider how slow all of the components were, it was much better to limit memory space to available RAM--16 MB or 4 GB. Of course, the 16 MB limit of the 68000 was rarely used. It was more likely restricted to 4 MB by an artificial limit.
Replacing the networking hardware was an expected change, as they were a bit behind the times already. It's not that everyone has been running to stores to find 802.11ac (Gigabit WiFi) equipment, but the major vendors already have it out there.
In any case, Apple are finally pushing toward the future again, having put it on pause earlier.
Update 2013.07.21: Apple are in the middle of a Back-to-School clearance, so there is no new iPhone, iPod touch, Mac Book Pro, etc. until supplies are exhausted. I suppose it's good for all involved but once a year changes aren't really enough to keep up with other companies. I thought that Apple were trying to be more flexible. Hopefully, they'll also have enough displays for a high density iPad mini, but I wouldn't bet on anything, given all the delays.
Wednesday, June 5, 2013
(Mac) OS X 10.8.4 seems to be much better
Call me a skeptic and call me cynical but I've been deceived so many times that Apple has fixed things that I don't believe anyone else. It's my belief that by 10.x.4, the version of the operating system is finally stable.
Mac OS X 10.3.4 finally had a decent amount of functionality and stability that I could abandon Mac OS 9.x, for instance. 10.4.4 and 10.5.4 signalled some great stability, although 10.5.x was a step backward for PowerPC-based machines. The speed and stability was in 10.4.10.
I pretty much considered Leopard (10.5.x) a disaster. It improved the pathetic performance on Intel-based machines to fair, while ruining it for PowerPC-based machines. It was about this time that Avie Tevanian left the company. If he was frustrated with Scott Forstall, I could understand that.
Snow Leopard (10.6.x) for Intel-based machines only, was a step in the right direction, as it seemed to make one faction happy--the new (often iPhone-related ) Mac buyers, who had no legacy equipment. I have a 2009 MacBook that works pretty well with it, especially compared to my hobbled late 2004 PowerBook on Leopard.
Blah blah blah...I'm trying to establish some background but I write too much that may not interest anyone. Sorry!
Anyway, Apple developed Lion to be a little this, a little that and Mountain Lion to improve on it.
I'm still a little uncomfortable with Mountain Lion because as soon as I connect my trackball the interface changes and some applications have a dual mode to deal with the new scrolling and scroll bars, etc.
My number one gripe with Mountain Lion is the delay. I've got a 2.6 GHz i7 processor with 16GB of RAM and a 480 GB SSD. It's nearly as fast as you can go--and there have been huge delays from 10.8.0 to 10.8.3. There have been delays starting applications and delays quitting them. 10.8.4 seems to erase the delays. Update 2013.06.10: talking to a buddy with a MacBook Pro with nVidia 320M graphics hardware, there is no noticeable enhancement.
I'm interested to see how it handles when I have 1000 photos to transfer from a CompactFlash or SD card and then, attempt to process them. Usually, the fans start running and the temperature rises to near 100 degrees C--too hot--unless it's iStat Menus that can't count. That was with the cooling pad running beneath the machine. I switched to a 3 fan cooler from Targus and it helps a bit more.
I suspect that this is next to the last update for 10.8, since WWDC is next week. I wish they'd fix iOS 6.x because I hate seeing notifications that show up 13 hours later. Instead, they'll foist an additional set of problems upon us, and those who can't upgrade will be lost without security updates even. I'm not being cynical--that's just history.
Update 2013.09.03: Geez, waiting for an update to anything, despite security issues, can be hell. It's been about three months, and I see weekly reports about 10.8.5 but nothing. There have been a couple of security updates, but nothing much to fix bugs. I've been finding more and more than the 2012 MacBook Pro and 10.8.4 won't work with my USB thumb drives. There seem to be conflicts with USB drivers that weren't there before the 10.8.4 update. As a backup, I tried the same thumb drives with 10.6.8 on the 2009 MacBook and it worked just as well as it did previously. I just need to make the data available to multiple machines.
It shouldn't be a surprise that an operating system fix breaks as many things as it fixes. In any case, September 10th is coming, and there is an expected announcement of the new iPhone models, but computers (other than MacBook Air, already updated) should be updated and operating systems should see updates. There will likely be iOS 7.0, as there will be new devices, but (Mac) OS X 10.9 should be available also, and possibly 10.8.5. I certainly need fixes.
Update 2013.11.25: Time has come and gone. 10.8.5 and 10.9 and iOS 7.0.4 are all out. Updated devices came along and 10.9 will help immensely with battery life. 10.8.5 will help with overall stability.
I've been considering a change to 10.9.x but I want to wait until it's fairly stable, especially when doing such a large download. I might put it on the 2009 MacBook. It's supposed to be a bit more conservative overall, so it might work better than 10.6.8, though I have my doubts. I'd rather test it on a not so critical machine than to upset my workflow, even though Mountain Lion could use some fixing.
Mac OS X 10.3.4 finally had a decent amount of functionality and stability that I could abandon Mac OS 9.x, for instance. 10.4.4 and 10.5.4 signalled some great stability, although 10.5.x was a step backward for PowerPC-based machines. The speed and stability was in 10.4.10.
I pretty much considered Leopard (10.5.x) a disaster. It improved the pathetic performance on Intel-based machines to fair, while ruining it for PowerPC-based machines. It was about this time that Avie Tevanian left the company. If he was frustrated with Scott Forstall, I could understand that.
Snow Leopard (10.6.x) for Intel-based machines only, was a step in the right direction, as it seemed to make one faction happy--the new (often iPhone-related ) Mac buyers, who had no legacy equipment. I have a 2009 MacBook that works pretty well with it, especially compared to my hobbled late 2004 PowerBook on Leopard.
Blah blah blah...I'm trying to establish some background but I write too much that may not interest anyone. Sorry!
Anyway, Apple developed Lion to be a little this, a little that and Mountain Lion to improve on it.
I'm still a little uncomfortable with Mountain Lion because as soon as I connect my trackball the interface changes and some applications have a dual mode to deal with the new scrolling and scroll bars, etc.
My number one gripe with Mountain Lion is the delay. I've got a 2.6 GHz i7 processor with 16GB of RAM and a 480 GB SSD. It's nearly as fast as you can go--and there have been huge delays from 10.8.0 to 10.8.3. There have been delays starting applications and delays quitting them. 10.8.4 seems to erase the delays. Update 2013.06.10: talking to a buddy with a MacBook Pro with nVidia 320M graphics hardware, there is no noticeable enhancement.
I'm interested to see how it handles when I have 1000 photos to transfer from a CompactFlash or SD card and then, attempt to process them. Usually, the fans start running and the temperature rises to near 100 degrees C--too hot--unless it's iStat Menus that can't count. That was with the cooling pad running beneath the machine. I switched to a 3 fan cooler from Targus and it helps a bit more.
I suspect that this is next to the last update for 10.8, since WWDC is next week. I wish they'd fix iOS 6.x because I hate seeing notifications that show up 13 hours later. Instead, they'll foist an additional set of problems upon us, and those who can't upgrade will be lost without security updates even. I'm not being cynical--that's just history.
Update 2013.09.03: Geez, waiting for an update to anything, despite security issues, can be hell. It's been about three months, and I see weekly reports about 10.8.5 but nothing. There have been a couple of security updates, but nothing much to fix bugs. I've been finding more and more than the 2012 MacBook Pro and 10.8.4 won't work with my USB thumb drives. There seem to be conflicts with USB drivers that weren't there before the 10.8.4 update. As a backup, I tried the same thumb drives with 10.6.8 on the 2009 MacBook and it worked just as well as it did previously. I just need to make the data available to multiple machines.
It shouldn't be a surprise that an operating system fix breaks as many things as it fixes. In any case, September 10th is coming, and there is an expected announcement of the new iPhone models, but computers (other than MacBook Air, already updated) should be updated and operating systems should see updates. There will likely be iOS 7.0, as there will be new devices, but (Mac) OS X 10.9 should be available also, and possibly 10.8.5. I certainly need fixes.
Update 2013.11.25: Time has come and gone. 10.8.5 and 10.9 and iOS 7.0.4 are all out. Updated devices came along and 10.9 will help immensely with battery life. 10.8.5 will help with overall stability.
I've been considering a change to 10.9.x but I want to wait until it's fairly stable, especially when doing such a large download. I might put it on the 2009 MacBook. It's supposed to be a bit more conservative overall, so it might work better than 10.6.8, though I have my doubts. I'd rather test it on a not so critical machine than to upset my workflow, even though Mountain Lion could use some fixing.
Apple's iOS Maps fixed?
In the last few weeks I've used Apple's maps a few times. The only time they failed me was when they were given the incorrect address.
When I originally used Apple's Map app with Google maps, I was doubtful about Google's maps because the directions Google had given me previously often put me several blocks away of my destination. So, when I switched to an iPhone, I went with a Telenav app because their apps on my various phones got me where I was going.
However, I was confused when I first used their app on the iPhone. I was getting strange directions and a couple of roads were called "country road" instead of their names. I realized something--the Navteq that I saw in my feature phone versions of the Telenav GPS app now said TomTom.
I was trying to get to a shopping center in New Jersey, just south of the George Washington Bridge but I hadn't been there for several years and I took a wrong exit in Fort Lee. I started the Telenav app and it immediately told me to "turn around", which always seemed its favourite thing to say. I worked out where I was and found the road, but the app wouldn't shut up, even after I closed it.
So, I tried other apps like Waze trying to find something that worked for me. Waze was cute and was helpful in avoiding trouble but wasn't helpful in navigating. It was better as a live map to view traffic backups. However, it would ask me if I was in heavy traffic when I was at a red light. Once I finished my trip, I removed it and have never used it again. Here is an interesting tidbit: Google supposedly has bought Waze and Apple never bid too seriously on the company.
Telenav and my memory have worked pretty well, but I hesitated to subscribe again. Since my new car and Bluetooth connection, the audio doesn't seem to work, which is most of the reason for the subscription. Of course, Telenav doesn't have a problem...ever.
That brought me back to the Apple app. It uses the same TomTom maps, which is both a blessing and a curse. It has given me easy audio directions, plus an easy to understand display that doesn't shift with the orientation of the phone. It has worked well and got me where I needed to go without trouble. The roads now have the correct name. The best thing about it is that it works well with a 2G data connection.
What's that mean? Too many times, I've been between cities and I get slow map updates or none at all. The GPS knows exactly where I am because that's independent of cellular data, but figuring out where I am (other than "here") is impossible.
I suppose Apple has forced TomTom to get their act together and that's a good thing for anyone using the TomTom maps.
Update 2013.06.17: Since I've been back in Philly and Jersey, I've been using navigation more. I think TomTom's maps in Jersey are just not very good. I can't blame them for not being able to handle jughandles, but they need to get me into the correct lane before the intersection, not when I'm unable to switch. I had quite a bit of fun getting from Freehold Raceway Mall back to Northeast Philly via Trenton but it did save me the bridge toll. If I'd been using gasoline, I'd probably have burned up the money I'd have spent on bridge toll looping around the bridge, though.
I used Waze on the trip from Ohio to Philly and into Jersey. It finally knows about stop lights!! I complained when I first used it last year that it would ask me why there was a slowdown but there was no red light button to tap. Now, it shows the stop lights. However, it still asks the same question about slowdowns where a stop light has not been added at an intersection and there is still no button to tap. Recently, at a major intersection in Ohio, it asked if there was a slowdown while I was sitting at the red light. I replied "stop light" in the comment. I got an e-mail later that it was unresolved "The map problem you reported on Waze on Jul 7, (stop light) has been reviewed by benjaminmeyer2013 but wasn't resolved, most likely due to insufficient information or non-exact location." They pointed me to the position on the map editor, but I have no way to add stop lights. smh Why lesser intersections show stop lights and that one doesn't--I'll never know. I have somehow activated the voice recognition a number of times but I'm not sure how to do that. It never seems to work when I want. It must be me.
Update 2013.08.18: Having been 5702 miles to San Jose, California and back, I've had a chance to use Apple's Maps and Waze more extensively. Both become confused and apparently, there is also a problem with compass interference with my iPhone 4S, as it regularly switches directions when I stop--or an app complains about compass interference. This could be my substantial electro-magnetic field or just some typical flaw in circuitry. Who knows?
For the most part, the apps worked well and either could get me where I wanted to go. I thought that the Apple/TomTom data was somewhat more reliable and straightforward, especially in San Jose. I tried using navigation for a few miles and a few hundred miles. When there were more intricacies on city streets, Apple/TomTom got me there but with the compass interference, I had to ignore some of the instructions when stopped. Waze was better at ignoring the compass interference, but maybe because it decided on odd routes.
I never did really get the hang of walking navigation until it was too late. I really had trouble in San Francisco and I might as well have been using a paper map. That said, I got to see a lot of the city that was interesting, but my feet got more action than they should have.
I still don't understand why Apple didn't purchase the company behind Waze. They're apparently working on this crowd-sourced information anyway, so it would have been a quicker step, but as quickly as Google has integrated the information into Google Maps, I'd think that they were working with Waze for a year beforehand, and the purchase was just the formality of it all.
Update 2014.02.22: I was using Yelp, which uses Apple's Maps application. The Maps application told me to turn a certain way onto the highway. The only problem is that there was no entrance there. I was in a shopping mall parking lot a few hundred feet from the road, and I had to go the opposite direction to exit the mall.
Since the last update, I bought an iPhone 5c. Today, I noticed the same direction switching. It doesn't happen nearly as often. It happened twice, rather than at every intersection.
Apple has bought several transit mapping companies, including the people behind the Embark apps. I was using one in California. I still don't know if they've made any progress with their Maps application but it was amusing today.
Update 2015.12.08: I just saw article-after-article about Apple Maps being the dominant maps on iOS. Obviously, Google Maps are used more overall. That shouldn't surprise anyone since Android is in many more places. There are certainly quite a few US$50.00 and cheaper Android-based phones for prepaid service.
I don't use Apple Maps that often. Usually, I'm using Waze, which is owned by Google. Waze is somewhat problematic, thinking that I want to head into freeway traffic jams, rather than faster local roads. Apple Maps has been particularly bad about not having shopping center entrances mapped and telling me to make a U-turn at the next street.
They're both a pain, in that they lag enough that they don't tell me in time, when I'm leaving a parking lot, to be on the opposite side of the road for a maneuver.
When I originally used Apple's Map app with Google maps, I was doubtful about Google's maps because the directions Google had given me previously often put me several blocks away of my destination. So, when I switched to an iPhone, I went with a Telenav app because their apps on my various phones got me where I was going.
However, I was confused when I first used their app on the iPhone. I was getting strange directions and a couple of roads were called "country road" instead of their names. I realized something--the Navteq that I saw in my feature phone versions of the Telenav GPS app now said TomTom.
I was trying to get to a shopping center in New Jersey, just south of the George Washington Bridge but I hadn't been there for several years and I took a wrong exit in Fort Lee. I started the Telenav app and it immediately told me to "turn around", which always seemed its favourite thing to say. I worked out where I was and found the road, but the app wouldn't shut up, even after I closed it.
So, I tried other apps like Waze trying to find something that worked for me. Waze was cute and was helpful in avoiding trouble but wasn't helpful in navigating. It was better as a live map to view traffic backups. However, it would ask me if I was in heavy traffic when I was at a red light. Once I finished my trip, I removed it and have never used it again. Here is an interesting tidbit: Google supposedly has bought Waze and Apple never bid too seriously on the company.
Telenav and my memory have worked pretty well, but I hesitated to subscribe again. Since my new car and Bluetooth connection, the audio doesn't seem to work, which is most of the reason for the subscription. Of course, Telenav doesn't have a problem...ever.
That brought me back to the Apple app. It uses the same TomTom maps, which is both a blessing and a curse. It has given me easy audio directions, plus an easy to understand display that doesn't shift with the orientation of the phone. It has worked well and got me where I needed to go without trouble. The roads now have the correct name. The best thing about it is that it works well with a 2G data connection.
What's that mean? Too many times, I've been between cities and I get slow map updates or none at all. The GPS knows exactly where I am because that's independent of cellular data, but figuring out where I am (other than "here") is impossible.
I suppose Apple has forced TomTom to get their act together and that's a good thing for anyone using the TomTom maps.
Update 2013.06.17: Since I've been back in Philly and Jersey, I've been using navigation more. I think TomTom's maps in Jersey are just not very good. I can't blame them for not being able to handle jughandles, but they need to get me into the correct lane before the intersection, not when I'm unable to switch. I had quite a bit of fun getting from Freehold Raceway Mall back to Northeast Philly via Trenton but it did save me the bridge toll. If I'd been using gasoline, I'd probably have burned up the money I'd have spent on bridge toll looping around the bridge, though.
I used Waze on the trip from Ohio to Philly and into Jersey. It finally knows about stop lights!! I complained when I first used it last year that it would ask me why there was a slowdown but there was no red light button to tap. Now, it shows the stop lights. However, it still asks the same question about slowdowns where a stop light has not been added at an intersection and there is still no button to tap. Recently, at a major intersection in Ohio, it asked if there was a slowdown while I was sitting at the red light. I replied "stop light" in the comment. I got an e-mail later that it was unresolved "The map problem you reported on Waze on Jul 7, (stop light) has been reviewed by benjaminmeyer2013 but wasn't resolved, most likely due to insufficient information or non-exact location." They pointed me to the position on the map editor, but I have no way to add stop lights. smh Why lesser intersections show stop lights and that one doesn't--I'll never know. I have somehow activated the voice recognition a number of times but I'm not sure how to do that. It never seems to work when I want. It must be me.
Update 2013.08.18: Having been 5702 miles to San Jose, California and back, I've had a chance to use Apple's Maps and Waze more extensively. Both become confused and apparently, there is also a problem with compass interference with my iPhone 4S, as it regularly switches directions when I stop--or an app complains about compass interference. This could be my substantial electro-magnetic field or just some typical flaw in circuitry. Who knows?
For the most part, the apps worked well and either could get me where I wanted to go. I thought that the Apple/TomTom data was somewhat more reliable and straightforward, especially in San Jose. I tried using navigation for a few miles and a few hundred miles. When there were more intricacies on city streets, Apple/TomTom got me there but with the compass interference, I had to ignore some of the instructions when stopped. Waze was better at ignoring the compass interference, but maybe because it decided on odd routes.
I never did really get the hang of walking navigation until it was too late. I really had trouble in San Francisco and I might as well have been using a paper map. That said, I got to see a lot of the city that was interesting, but my feet got more action than they should have.
I still don't understand why Apple didn't purchase the company behind Waze. They're apparently working on this crowd-sourced information anyway, so it would have been a quicker step, but as quickly as Google has integrated the information into Google Maps, I'd think that they were working with Waze for a year beforehand, and the purchase was just the formality of it all.
Update 2014.02.22: I was using Yelp, which uses Apple's Maps application. The Maps application told me to turn a certain way onto the highway. The only problem is that there was no entrance there. I was in a shopping mall parking lot a few hundred feet from the road, and I had to go the opposite direction to exit the mall.
Since the last update, I bought an iPhone 5c. Today, I noticed the same direction switching. It doesn't happen nearly as often. It happened twice, rather than at every intersection.
Apple has bought several transit mapping companies, including the people behind the Embark apps. I was using one in California. I still don't know if they've made any progress with their Maps application but it was amusing today.
Update 2015.12.08: I just saw article-after-article about Apple Maps being the dominant maps on iOS. Obviously, Google Maps are used more overall. That shouldn't surprise anyone since Android is in many more places. There are certainly quite a few US$50.00 and cheaper Android-based phones for prepaid service.
I don't use Apple Maps that often. Usually, I'm using Waze, which is owned by Google. Waze is somewhat problematic, thinking that I want to head into freeway traffic jams, rather than faster local roads. Apple Maps has been particularly bad about not having shopping center entrances mapped and telling me to make a U-turn at the next street.
They're both a pain, in that they lag enough that they don't tell me in time, when I'm leaving a parking lot, to be on the opposite side of the road for a maneuver.
Sunday, June 2, 2013
Sad to see the Camino browser ended
Camino, the Mac-only web browser has been around since the early days of Mac OS X, when it began as Chimera.
It was the inspiration for Phoenix, which became Firebird, which became Firefox.
For those who don't remember, Netscape Navigator became Communicator with much more than just a web browser, and is now Sea Monkey. It became bloated with version 6, as they tried to create a better way to handle the web and its changes.
Camino came along just in time for many early users on Mac OS X. We had the laughable Internet Explorer 5.x, based on Spyglass' Mosaic, that wasn't really compatible with Internet Explorer-focused sites even. The OmniGroup brought us OmniWeb, which had been on NeXTStep for quite a while. That platform being where the web started.
Camino gave us Mozilla/Netscape compatibility in a very responsive browser. It was everything a Mac application should have been and showed the potential for the platform in ways that Apple's development never has. Of course, as the years have passed, there are very good releases of Firefox, Safari, Opera, and Chrome to supplant Camino.
I often tried Camino but as of Firefox 2.0, there was no further need for me. Yes, it was incredibly responsive in comparison to all of the other available browsers I tried, but stability was a major issue for me. As the team integrated changes from Firefox, Camino tended to crash more. Firefox wasn't incredibly stable at 2.x but it was better overall.
I tend to keep Firefox, Safari, Opera, and Chrome on my system and updated because there will be incompatibilities, even though they're minimal now. Firefox to me is as good as they come, but Chrome works well and Opera is no longer weird, and Safari is a browser you need to keep but may not ever use, except to change preferences for the browser.
In any case, I salute the developers and various testers of Camino. They made Mac OS X life so much easier way back when. May they find something even more interesting to keep them busy.
It was the inspiration for Phoenix, which became Firebird, which became Firefox.
For those who don't remember, Netscape Navigator became Communicator with much more than just a web browser, and is now Sea Monkey. It became bloated with version 6, as they tried to create a better way to handle the web and its changes.
Camino came along just in time for many early users on Mac OS X. We had the laughable Internet Explorer 5.x, based on Spyglass' Mosaic, that wasn't really compatible with Internet Explorer-focused sites even. The OmniGroup brought us OmniWeb, which had been on NeXTStep for quite a while. That platform being where the web started.
Camino gave us Mozilla/Netscape compatibility in a very responsive browser. It was everything a Mac application should have been and showed the potential for the platform in ways that Apple's development never has. Of course, as the years have passed, there are very good releases of Firefox, Safari, Opera, and Chrome to supplant Camino.
I often tried Camino but as of Firefox 2.0, there was no further need for me. Yes, it was incredibly responsive in comparison to all of the other available browsers I tried, but stability was a major issue for me. As the team integrated changes from Firefox, Camino tended to crash more. Firefox wasn't incredibly stable at 2.x but it was better overall.
I tend to keep Firefox, Safari, Opera, and Chrome on my system and updated because there will be incompatibilities, even though they're minimal now. Firefox to me is as good as they come, but Chrome works well and Opera is no longer weird, and Safari is a browser you need to keep but may not ever use, except to change preferences for the browser.
In any case, I salute the developers and various testers of Camino. They made Mac OS X life so much easier way back when. May they find something even more interesting to keep them busy.
Wednesday, May 29, 2013
Three Months with the Panasonic GH3
So, it's been about three months since I ordered and received the Panasonic DMC-GH3. It was a huge gamble at the time, and I've questioned my decision almost every day.
Since my recent background is with Four-Thirds--Olympus E-1 and E-5 bodies--it made sense to buy something that was somewhat compatible and somewhat familiar. The Olympus E-M5 had the viewfinder and the capabilities. It was also a familiar shape since I spent several years with an OM-1N body. That history suggested to me that the E-M5 would be slippery at best with Four-Thirds lenses. The GH3 had a good-sized grip and a form not unlike the E-5, but from the positioning of most everything, the GH3 was meant to appeal to Canon users.
What's good:
What's not so good:
I'm finally starting to feel really comfortable with it and I'm getting acceptable photos. I would say that they're all outstanding but it's not quite that good. The variable white balance between frames could be an advantage but it's not. Panasonic have come a long way in their default colour but it still needs tuning. I'm also feeling that the sharpness isn't always there, but it looks fine with the Four-Thirds lenses.
It feels like a photographer's camera body but it doesn't exactly act like one. I finally found the Auto Review setting, which was playing havoc with the viewfinder. Almost magically, I was able to follow the action without the viewfinder. Since I've changed the setting, the display is minimally delayed. However, there is also the manual focus assist/pinpoint focus. This magnifies the image, so that you can focus tiny details. Unfortunately, this gets in the way of sports photography. When runners are coming toward me, I need to focus on them quickly. Yes, I use manual focus during cross country and track meets. No matter how good auto focus is (Nikon, Canon, whatever), I still need a precision that doesn't seem to exist, except by my hand.
Also, in this case, I need zoom lenses. I zoom and manually focus at the same time. The 35-100mm f/2.8 I've got is a good lens, but it's overpriced. If it's equal to Canon's 70-200mm f/2.8, I'd be surprised but that was Panasonic's goal. I just don't see a US$1500 lens there, no matter how much R&D it took to reduce a 77mm filter size to 58mm. Olympus' ZD 50-200mm is a much better lens, and it's less expensive. The trouble is--the 35-100mm is the best telephoto zoom lens for micro Four-Thirds. Other factors like a laggy continuous auto focus complicate sports photography. Hopefully, these problems do not affect video work.
I'm pleased with the image quality up to ISO 3200, where it outshines my E-5 quite a bit, especially since I limit the E-5 to ISO 1600. Anything above ISO 3200 with the GH3 should be a shot you needed regardless of image quality and not a preferred choice. Judging from DPReview's comparisons, I think it's ahead of most dSLRs in detail up to ISO 3200, up through US$1500. However, the Olympus E-M5 is extracting a bit more detail from what is apparently the same sensor. Perhaps, the Nikon D600 should have been my choice but it's very much an economy camera (US$800 difference from the D800 isn't enough.) for those who have been chanting "Full Frame" as the fix for everything. It's much a D7000 (not a D7100) for the 135 format lusting. (I picked up a D600 today for the first time and it felt overly heavy. I expect the D800 to be heavy, but not so much the D600.) My research shows me that the D7100 is a better camera body and the 1.5x telephoto boost wouldn't hurt.
I really like the GH3's external controls but grrrrrr, the horizontal dial on the back is too easily turned, and then, so is my aperture changed. The SD Card door is easily opened but thankfully, the card is held in place until you press it inward to engage the spring mechanism to release it. However, there is only one card slot, so it seems that Panasonic was thinking consumer-ish when they designed the camera, and the same with the battery grip.
There are many good things and a few bad things. I haven't gone through everything because I've been too focused on photographing sports. I think the GH3 is a winner for Panasonic, and I think it's a definite threat to Canon, who seem to be attacked from all sides lately. I'm sure that Olympus is interested in a similar camera body but they're concerned about being too focused with any product. They want a broader appeal. To me, micro Four-Thirds continues to improve and in a few years, there will probably be a select few dSLRs on the market, simply because mirror-less bodies have become so good, no matter the camera maker.
Since my recent background is with Four-Thirds--Olympus E-1 and E-5 bodies--it made sense to buy something that was somewhat compatible and somewhat familiar. The Olympus E-M5 had the viewfinder and the capabilities. It was also a familiar shape since I spent several years with an OM-1N body. That history suggested to me that the E-M5 would be slippery at best with Four-Thirds lenses. The GH3 had a good-sized grip and a form not unlike the E-5, but from the positioning of most everything, the GH3 was meant to appeal to Canon users.
What's good:
- Image quality, up to ISO 3200
- Body build
- Flexibility
- Video
- External controls
- Battery life
- Electronic Viewfinder
- Easily updated firmware
- Lens adapters
What's not so good:
- Comes configured as a consumer camera
- Variable Auto White Balance between frames
- SD Card door opens easily and there is only one slot
- Rear horizontal dial (and aperture) is changed too easily
- micro Four-Thirds lenses
- Using the electronic Viewfinder with glasses or sunglasses
I'm finally starting to feel really comfortable with it and I'm getting acceptable photos. I would say that they're all outstanding but it's not quite that good. The variable white balance between frames could be an advantage but it's not. Panasonic have come a long way in their default colour but it still needs tuning. I'm also feeling that the sharpness isn't always there, but it looks fine with the Four-Thirds lenses.
It feels like a photographer's camera body but it doesn't exactly act like one. I finally found the Auto Review setting, which was playing havoc with the viewfinder. Almost magically, I was able to follow the action without the viewfinder. Since I've changed the setting, the display is minimally delayed. However, there is also the manual focus assist/pinpoint focus. This magnifies the image, so that you can focus tiny details. Unfortunately, this gets in the way of sports photography. When runners are coming toward me, I need to focus on them quickly. Yes, I use manual focus during cross country and track meets. No matter how good auto focus is (Nikon, Canon, whatever), I still need a precision that doesn't seem to exist, except by my hand.
Also, in this case, I need zoom lenses. I zoom and manually focus at the same time. The 35-100mm f/2.8 I've got is a good lens, but it's overpriced. If it's equal to Canon's 70-200mm f/2.8, I'd be surprised but that was Panasonic's goal. I just don't see a US$1500 lens there, no matter how much R&D it took to reduce a 77mm filter size to 58mm. Olympus' ZD 50-200mm is a much better lens, and it's less expensive. The trouble is--the 35-100mm is the best telephoto zoom lens for micro Four-Thirds. Other factors like a laggy continuous auto focus complicate sports photography. Hopefully, these problems do not affect video work.
I'm pleased with the image quality up to ISO 3200, where it outshines my E-5 quite a bit, especially since I limit the E-5 to ISO 1600. Anything above ISO 3200 with the GH3 should be a shot you needed regardless of image quality and not a preferred choice. Judging from DPReview's comparisons, I think it's ahead of most dSLRs in detail up to ISO 3200, up through US$1500. However, the Olympus E-M5 is extracting a bit more detail from what is apparently the same sensor. Perhaps, the Nikon D600 should have been my choice but it's very much an economy camera (US$800 difference from the D800 isn't enough.) for those who have been chanting "Full Frame" as the fix for everything. It's much a D7000 (not a D7100) for the 135 format lusting. (I picked up a D600 today for the first time and it felt overly heavy. I expect the D800 to be heavy, but not so much the D600.) My research shows me that the D7100 is a better camera body and the 1.5x telephoto boost wouldn't hurt.
I really like the GH3's external controls but grrrrrr, the horizontal dial on the back is too easily turned, and then, so is my aperture changed. The SD Card door is easily opened but thankfully, the card is held in place until you press it inward to engage the spring mechanism to release it. However, there is only one card slot, so it seems that Panasonic was thinking consumer-ish when they designed the camera, and the same with the battery grip.
There are many good things and a few bad things. I haven't gone through everything because I've been too focused on photographing sports. I think the GH3 is a winner for Panasonic, and I think it's a definite threat to Canon, who seem to be attacked from all sides lately. I'm sure that Olympus is interested in a similar camera body but they're concerned about being too focused with any product. They want a broader appeal. To me, micro Four-Thirds continues to improve and in a few years, there will probably be a select few dSLRs on the market, simply because mirror-less bodies have become so good, no matter the camera maker.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)