48 posts tagged “quain”
People mulling the idea of buying a computer often ask, "Should I get Windows XP or Vista on it?" That question is about to become moot.
As of June 30th, 2008, computer makers will no longer be able to sell machines with XP installed. But people still clinging to Windows XP on existing systems needn't worry. Kevin Kutz, the director of Microsoft's Windows client group assured me that free support for consumers will continue to June 2009. So patches and fixes will be available. Furthermore, Microsoft will continue to make freely available security updates available for years after that, plus offer paid support, mostly aimed at businesses, through 2014.
Kutz also reminded me that small business folks who purchase machines with Vista Business or higher now have the option to downgrade to Windows XP--even after the June 30th deadline. The reason for this is to allow folks who discover that their company has, say, a custom-built application that doesn't work with Vista time to make changes. So in other words, you could buy 20 Vista machines from HP, then discover that they don't work with a critical application in the office, and simply call HP to get Windows XP free-of-charge for the machines. Kutz also underlined the fact that businesses that go that route can move back up to Vista later, free of charge.
Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer's recent comment that Vista was a "work in progress" set loose rumors that Microsoft would essentially skip Vista and just move on to the next big operating system upgrade. But the next version of Windows, code named Windows 7, isn't due until 2010 "ish" says Kutz. By then, holding onto Windows XP may feel like you're working on a DOS computer.
If you want more on the status of Windows XP, watch my segment tonight, April 23, on CBS News Up to the Minute.
FOR MORE OF JQ'S NEWS AND REVIEWS, VISIT J-Q.COM
All mobile phones will eventually be "smart" phones. But for now, the Crackberry, er, Blackberry is the leader. Apple promises to hook its hot iPhone into corporate e-mail systems this summer, which should give the devices a boost in the business market. However, the iPhone's tardy data service and lack of GPS functions for navigation and location-based services mean it still has a lot of catching up to do.
I took a quick look at the iPhone and two promising alternatives on competing carriers for one of my regular Fox Business segments. You can can watch it here, or get a brief rundown of how the LG Voyager and Samsung Ace stack up against the iPhone at J-Q.com.
FOR MORE OF JQ'S NEWS AND REVIEWS, VISIT J-Q.COM
Among the many items, releases, and gimcracks arriving at our office of late, the funniest one has to be from the folks working on the Windows Home Server account.
It came in the form of a childrens' picture book entitled, "Mommy, Why is There a Server in the House?" I kid you not. It's actually a tongue-in-cheek explanation of the purpose of a home server (an explanation for adults is here). And it did make everyone at J-Q.com take notice and chuckle. (Best line: "Offices are why big people get grumpy, [sic] and say bad words." No kidding.)
It's worth mentioning that I've also run across several people who have purchased HP's version of the Windows Home Server, dubbed the MediaSmart Server. Every one of them has been quite pleased with the experience so far.
So, snaps to the person who thought up the kid's board book idea. It's not likely to replace "The Lorax" in my daughter's library any time soon, but it's very amusing, and it did remind us how useful the Windows Home Server is...and make us write about it one more time.
FOR MORE OF JQ'S NEWS AND REVIEWS, VISIT J-Q.COM
At a press conference in New York City, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos debuted the company's e-book dubbed Kindle. Smaller and thinner than previous e-book attempts, the most noteworthy thing about Amazon's device is that it includes free wireless access via the cellular data standard known as EVDO so that owners can download books, magazines, and--yes--blogs, directly to the Kindle.
It's an interesting model for high-speed (or relatively high-speed) data service: don't charge a monthly fee, just charge for the content (hello, AT&T and Verizon, are you listening?). This is an approach that could work, even if the Kindle isn't ultimately successful.
One high point of the press conference: "The best encyclopedia is Wikipedia," said Bezos. And he wasn't joking. Honest, didn't even crack a smile. And we wonder why all those college papers have such egregious errors of fact in them....
For more on the Kindle, and less snarkiness, see "Amazon's Kindle."
FOR MORE OF JQ'S NEWS AND REVIEWS, VISIT J-Q.COM
Testing a new product is one thing. Seeing it in action out in the real world is something else, a fact I was reminded of yesterday in the Time Warner Center perched on the corner of Central Park.
Between meetings I happened into one of New York City's rarest of commodities, a public bathroom (and you thought I was going to say "courtesy" or "good manners" or "proper grammar"). I wasn't loitering in the men's room, unlike some politicians we know, honest. Nature called, so I followed a long line of tourists into the facilities. The first thing I noticed in the room was a pair of Dyson Airblades stuck to the wall.
For those unfamiliar with the Airblade, it's a rapid hand drying machine made by the snooty Dyson vacuum cleaner company (for a complete description see, "Blow It Off"). It's not unlike the machines in public restrooms in Japan and elsewhere (not that I'm on a world tour of men's rooms or anything). It's better than the hot air blowers because it doesn't make your hands chapped and it's faster. It also saves trees because it obviates the need for paper towels--although if you wash your face...you have to go back to paper towels. But I digress.
Seeing the Airblade for the first time in a public space I was intrigued to notice a few things. First, no one else in the men's room even noticed the devices; they clearly didn't know what they were. Second, I was the only person to use them in the crowded facility. (This is not intended as some crack about how people don't wash their hands after using the bathroom. People did wash their hands while I was there--especially the tourists--but they used the paper towels provided.) Third, the Airblade worked, but it took two passes of my hands through the machine to get them really dry.
So clearly Dyson has to spend some marketing money if the Airblade is going to really going to take off (you didn't really think I was going to pass up on that obvious pun, did you?). And my experience proves once again that the greatest technology in the world won't make a wit of a difference if no one knows what it is or what it does.
FOR MORE OF JQ'S NEWS AND REVIEWS, VISIT J-Q.COM
As reported some weeks ago, Business 2.0 has finally bitten the dust. The October issue of the magazine will be its last.
Its demise is confirmation that there is no longer any separation between business and technology. But I'm still not gloating. Doubtless, many self-appointed media mavens will be speculating about the future of one my former alma maters, Fast Company magazine. However, I'm wondering how long the likes of Forbes (which is gloating, by the way) has on the newsstands. Fast Company used to be a Boston-New York-D.C. shuttle mainstay. But ask yourself: When was the last time you bought a copy of Forbes? How about Fortune?
While you're pondering that--or even pondering when the last time you bought a magazine that didn't have Branjolina on the cover--you might want to get a copy of the final Business 2.0 issue. It has a feature story on what to do with your money when the real estate market is tanking. I'll bet you one of the suggestions isn't to invest in publishing companies....
FOR MORE OF JQ'S NEWS AND REVIEWS, VISIT J-Q.COM
Net neutrality has yet to pierce the public consciousness (Jon Stewart notwithstanding), but that moment may soon be upon us.
The phrase "net neutrality" refers to the current state of the Web wherein every site has parity on the Internet. Anyone can start a Web site (say, Joe's Guide to Sesquipedalianistic People) and be assured that you and I can connect to it as easily as we connect to, say, The New York Times online. It is the way the Internet was designed, and it is what makes it a unique communications tool and an increasingly essential part of the global business and information infrastructure.
Now, several companies want to hijack the Web, change its structure, and use it to wring money out of every single site on the World Wide Web. The proposal is to strike down net neutrality so that companies like AT&T, Verizon, and Qwest could make it easier to access some web sites and more difficult to access others. So, in the future if you wanted people to be able to download video clips from your site, for example, you'd have to pay additional fees to one of the companies that own the phyisical telecommunications lines, otherwise those companies would make it extremely difficult for people to access your Web site.
The result: Good-bye comparison shopping online, good-bye entrepreneurs and innovation, good-bye voice over IP digital phone services like Skype, good-bye videos online, good-bye every Web 2.0 idea you've every heard of. The only sites that would survive would be the likes of Amazon and Google, which presumably could afford to pay the telecos for priority access. Oh, and you can kiss the idea of online advertising good-bye as well, since the only way to get sufficient traffic to support an ad-based model would be to give the telecos a cut. However, the margins for most sites are too small to make that feasible.
Currently, there is no explicit legislation to prevent telecos from charging every Web site additional fees for access. Hence, the so-called net neutrality movement, which wants legislators to enact laws to prevent the telecos from fragmenting the Web and stifling innovation, restricting access to information, etc. (Incidentally, there is already technology out there to prioritize informational traffic on the Net--IPv6--but that is designed to address other Internet issues, such as how to accommodate, say, streaming video and the explosion of IP numbers.)
What's remarkable about the net neutrality issue is that some organizations, ignorant about how the Internet is structured, have come out against net neutrality. The latest to voice such a position is the technologically handicapped U.S. Department of Justice. On September 6, it filed a so-called ex parte paper with the FCC commenting on net neutrality. Essentially, that paper argued against preserving net neutrality for two reasons: 1) net neutrality laws would stifle innovation, and 2) allowing companies to create a multi-tiered service has worked in other businesses, like the U.S. Postal Service.
As to the first point, it is patently false. Net neutrality is the existing state of affairs and there's been plenty of innovation (no matter how much fun I poke at trendy marketing terms like Web 2.0). Maybe no one at the DOJ has used the Internet yet.
On the second point, it a false analogy. Aside from the questionable tactic of citing the U.S. Postal Service--which is barely hanging on by its fingernails and has failed to innovate since the days of the pony express--the Internet is really more analogous to the phone system. So following the DOJ's logic, eliminating net neutrality would be like allowing phone companies to not only charge for basic service, but also charge each and every one of us an extra fee to actually guarantee that our phones would ring every time someone called (rather than just ringing, well, some times).
So why should you care about net neutrality? Because if net neutrality were to end any business that uses the Web would be adversely affected and every person who uses the Web even just for e-mail could see the utility of the Internet severely curtailed.
To learn more about the issue, how it could affect you, and what you can do about it, I suggest visiting Save the Internet. See also, "Fighting for Higher Phone Bills."
FOR MORE OF JQ'S NEWS AND REVIEWS, VISIT J-Q.COM
Skype appears to be back up in the U.S. Connecting to the service takes several minutes, but it appears to be running. However, since none of our contacts are online, we haven't been able to confirm it. So is it safe to log back into Skype?
Try it out and let us know what you uncover.
PS: If you're not a Skype user and are wondering what all the fuss is about, see this article.
FOR MORE OF JQ'S NEWS AND REVIEWS, VISIT J-Q.COM
Currently, millions of Skype users worldwide are disconnected. The Internet voice over IP phone and video calling service--which boasts over 220 million users--is experiencing outages around the world.
In the U.S. service has been disrupted with callers unable to log into the Skype service. This is a serious issue for many small businesses who rely on the service and will doubtless hurt the eBay-owned company's credibility. Compounding the problem, Skype has done little to address user concerns, offering only this terse and uninformative note on its website:
"Some of you may be having problems logging into Skype. Our engineering team has determined that it’s a software issue. We expect this to be resolved within 12 to 24 hours. Meanwhile, you can simply leave your Skype client running and as soon as the issue is resolved, you will be logged in. We apologize for the inconvenience.
Additionally, downloads of Skype have been temporarily disabled. We will make downloads available again as quickly as possible."
24 hours? Uh oh.
Incidentally, we recommend NOT leaving the Skype client open. It's wiser to shut it down for now and wait until we hear service is back up and running.
FOR MORE OF JQ'S NEWS AND REVIEWS, VISIT J-Q.COM
15 Minutes to Midnight
Despite the fact that according to a Gallop poll only about 23 percent of Americans believe that journalists have high ethical standards (hey, at least we have standards), journalism is a profession that requires training, experience, dedication, dogged research, and skin thicker than a rhino's posterior. But the profession is under attack and continuing diminution. And we don't just mean by Rupert "My Wall Street Journal" Murdoch.
There are sites that post press releases as news (you know the sites), bloggers that get paid to post positive stories, news organizations that use e-mailed photos and video without seeking independent confirmation, search engines that publish photos without applying any standards, and media barrons who consider facts to be somewhat malleable (okay, now we do mean Murdoch).
Hence the countdown clock.
The reason for the current time: Google's decision to test a system whereby corporations, politicians, and even convicted felons can rebut news stories. The rebuttals will be given equal weight alongside stories pulled from original sites and re-posted on Google News. More important, the profession responsible for toiling over the original story will not have a voice in the process. (For the official/unofficial press release/blog/guerilla marketing posting/whatever-the-heck-it-is note from Google, which we think should be entitled, "When Bad Software Engineers Happen to Good People," see "Perspectives about the news from people in the news" here.)
Aside from demonstrating incredible cluelessness on the part of Google's "news" team--the people behind the slowest and most unreliable news aggregation site on the Web--such an experiment also reveals two hidden assumptions about the news:
1) The professional always gets the story wrong and so all interested parties (say, a company that stands to lose money because their toys are revealed to be covered in lead paint) should be given equal status.
2) There's no point in even attempting to be objective. Everybody's spinning, so why shouldn't we just add to the confusion with more spin?
Of course, the real losers are not the underpaid ink-stained wretches. The real losers here are the moms who want to know what toys are safe for their children, the patients who want to know what dangers certain drugs may pose, the voters who want to know what a candidate actually believes, the investors who want know where to put their money, and the rest of us, who just want to know.
FOR MORE OF JQ'S NEWS AND REVIEWS, VISIT J-Q.COM
