SuperSite Blog : Humor

And You Thought Your Notebook Had Good Battery Life

pthurrott — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 08:39:03 GMT

I opened my laptop this morning and saw the following battery life reading and had to laugh out loud. We can only dream of such battery life. But it's nice to dream. :)

Windows 8 To Be 128-bit Only? LOL

pthurrott — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 19:13:22 GMT

Wow. I have to admit, the most amazing thing about this rumor is that anyone believed it. I won't single anyone out, but spare me. It's completely and utterly bogus. Obviously.

Yet another new version of Windows for Europe

pthurrott — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 08:57:38 GMT

Or, to be more specific, for Amsterdam. The Red Light District of Amsterdam. :)

Seen while waiting on my kids, who were shopping for souvenirs. It's called "Windows XXX."

Office 2010 The Movie: Trailer now available

pthurrott — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 13:55:40 GMT

This is genuinely hilarious. Just excellent, excellent stuff.

Worst blog post ever? Or worst blog ever?

pthurrott — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 15:46:28 GMT

I used to think of lazy bloggers as being the bottom feeders of the web. (You know, people who blog about absolutely nothing and then end the post with, "Thoughts?" or "Discuss!" in some weird bid to get an actual conversation going.) But this one takes the cake.

In a post to the new Chrome OS Leak blog, this guy posts supposed pics of the Chrome OS and then says...

I am putting my career and notability on the line in this!

He then proceeds to sign the post anonymously. LOL. Way to put yourself out on a limb there!

BTW, the pictures are lame too. :) But the post is worth reading, assuming it's real.

UPDATE: It's not real. What a loser!

Upload your apps now. Windows Marketplace for Mobile

pthurrott — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:05:59 GMT

Microsoft's Windows Mobile (or, we should say, "WinMob") team goes viral and decidedly non-PC in this video-based attempt to woo developers to their platform. It's funny, and a bit long, but they get at least some credit for simply ignoring the line that usually separates product marketing from good taste. It's worth watching if you have a sense of humor.

"Accelerometer-driven [bleep]... "

"... with a compass!"

:) Nice.

Thanks to Rami A. for the link.

Mozilla puts Safari's '11 million downloads' in perspective

pthurrott — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 13:22:06 GMT

LOL. As if it weren’t bad enough that Apple was force feeding Safari 4 to its customers and then gloating about the number of downloads it achieved, we have this bit of news from Mozilla’s Asa Dotzler, which really puts that figure in perspective.

I just read that Apple is reporting 11 million Safari 4 downloads in just three days. That's pretty amazing.

I'd like to follow up that report with one of my own.

Firefox 3.0.11 was downloaded about 150 million times in the last 24 hours.

Ahahaha. That’s good stuff. Or as CNET’s Matt Asay puts it, it makes Apple’s number “almost a rounding error.”

It would be spiteful, but all too easy, to put most of Apple’s claims to the test like this and reveal them to be the silliness that they really are. It continues to astonish me that Apple gets such a pass in the tech media.

Thanks to Marlon H. for the tip.

WWDC 2009: Time for a reality check

pthurrott — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 18:33:21 GMT

Apple is providing its WWDC 2009 keynote address today, providing some interesting info about its Mac and iPhone platforms. But this is Apple we're talking about. So it's time for a reality check.

75 million Mac OS X users. Apple claimed that the OS X user base magically jumped from 25 million to 75 million active users in two years. But it didn't. It jumped to 35 million users. The other 40 million are using iPhones and iPod touches. So if there are 1 billion active PC users (and that's an old figure), than OS X usage share right now is 3.5 percent. Everyone's onboard with the math, right? 3.5 percent. "No wonder everyone is trying to follow in our footsteps," Apple SVP Phil Schiller said. Right.

Macbooks magically become Macbook Pros. Apple rebranded the 13-inch Macbook as the Macbook Pro and added SD slots across the line-up. FINALLY. I've only been asking for this handy little feature for, what, 6 years? The batteries are non-replaceable. I'm pretty sure no one was asking for that feature. And they added Firewire 800. Seriously, how about two more USB ports? Oh, and $1699 to start for a lowball 15-inch unit? To Mac guys, this is big news.

Hypocrisy around Vista/7 and Leopard/Snow Leopard. This year, both Microsoft and Apple are working on revisions to existing OSes. In Microsoft's case, Windows 7 is a nice revision to Windows Vista. And Snow Leopard is a minor revision (service pack) to Mac OS X Leopard. Both Windows Vista and Leopard have had their share of problems, but Vista's are more high profile and thus, apparently, news to the wider world. But look how Apple's Darth Vader, Bertrand Serlet, describes these updates:

Windows 7: "Even more complexity is present in Windows 7. The same old tech as Vista. Just another version of Vista."

Snow Leopard: "We come from such a different place. We love Leopard, we're so proud of it, we decided to build upon Leopard. We want to build a better Leopard, hence Snow Leopard."

Um. They sound the same to me. Jerk.

For the record, Snow Leopard looks just fine to me. It should, after three years of development on a point release.

Exchange support in Snow Leopard. Apple makes fun of Microsoft to comic effect (see above) ... Unless, of course, they need Microsoft. Which they do, to add Exchange support to its products. Oh, wait. "With Exchange support built into Snow Leopard, there is no extra charge for Mac OS users while Windows users usually have to pay extra." There it is.

Safari 4 today for OS X, Windows. Yawn.

QuickTime X for OS X, Windows. Actually, this looks good. I especially like how the UI looks like no other OS X app. Nice consistency there from the HIG.

Mac OS X is not fully 64-bit. While Windows users get 64-bit versions of Windows, Mac OS X users will, in Snow Leopard, get an OS in which most of the system is 64-bit, but many "non-major system apps" are still 32-bit.

Snow Leopard pricing. Apple is finally charging the right price for the latest in a long list of minor upgrades: $29 to Leopard users. This is exactly right, and should serve as inspiration for Microsoft. Seriously.

iPhone 3.0. The iPhone is really popular, and let's face it, it's awesome. iPhone 3.0, which I've been using since February, is a very minor update, and mostly adds things that should have been there in the first place. Biggest disappointment: Apple is adding tethering, but AT&T refuses to allow it. Hey, AT&T. F#$% you. Yeah. Really.

Apple needs to tone down the boring stuff. Look guys, here's another iPhone app. We get it. Move along, please.

iPhone 3G S. Was curious what they were going to call the iPhone 3, since the iPhone 3G was the iPhone 2.0. Now we know. Built in 7.2MBps HSDPA for data. New camera (finally). But same form factor. (Which makes sense, given the add-on market, but lacks a certain pizzazz.) I mean, where could they go with this, really? Anyway: Pricing is $199 (16 GB), $299 (32 GB). Surely there's an upgrade program for existing users. [Cricket chirps.]

Voice Control. (3GS only.) Apple copies Microsoft Sync, no one notices. And by the way, the notion of talking to a smart phone should be obvious. Just saying.

Best live keynote coverage. Engadget, hands down.

The magic of wishful thinking ... Windows 7 edition?

pthurrott — Fri, 08 May 2009 13:57:25 GMT

Virtually everyone who has used the Windows 7 RC has come away with positive reactions, especially concerning performance. And few would question the fact that Windows 7 runs acceptably on even low-end netbook hardware, a la Windows XP, but unlike Windows Vista. And yet, now that we have the first credible performance benchmarks in from PC World, some doubt has been cast on these claims. Is Windows 7 really appreciably faster than its predecessor?

Improving performance is one of Microsoft's design goals with Windows 7, and many early reviewers (including ours) have said that the new OS seems peppier than Vista. But tests of the Windows 7 Release Candidate in the PC World Test Center found that while Windows 7 was slightly faster on our WorldBench 6 suite, the differences may be barely noticeable to users.

We loaded the Windows 7 Release Candidate on three systems (two desktops and a laptop) and then ran our WorldBench 6 suite. Afterward we compared the results with the WorldBench 6 numbers from the same three systems running Windows Vista. Each PC was slightly faster when running Windows 7, but in no case was the overall improvement greater than 5 percent, our threshold for when a performance change is noticeable to the average user.

If these test results remain consistent with those for the final version of Windows 7, the news will likely be disappointing to many Windows users.

I guess so. But the thing is, benchmarks don't measure real world performance. What I'd like to see is how real-world tasks--boot-up, resume from sleep, how long it takes from button click to application launch (and under different loads), and so on--really compare between the two OSes. I'd continue this discussion, but ... oh, my. There's something moving in the tall grass. And it might just be Bigfoot! I'm off...

The magic of wishful thinking ... This time in the Apple camp

pthurrott — Wed, 06 May 2009 13:45:58 GMT

Recent reports of a magic IE 8 performance boost make me smile because this kind of thing is simply human. We all see what we want to see, what we expect to see. It's just part of our DNA. It explains UFO and Bigfoot sightings. And, apparently, it explains Apple fanatics. Because these guys believe. Here's a fun example:

According to a report on iPhones.ru, found via Gizmodo, the latest claim is that, somehow, magically, the upcoming iPhone 3.0 software update is making the iPhone camera (which is an absolute steaming pile of you-know-what)--get this take--take better pictures. :) Yeah, right.

According to one series of tests, the [iPhone] firmware 3.0 is taking better photos than its predecessor.

iPhones.ru took side by side photos with new iPhone firmware and old iPhone firmware. That lead comparison photo is not the result of a single snapshot, but 30 that produced similar results: Firmware 2.2.1 blurred the cat, then 3.0 blurred the cat ever so slightly less.

Updated firmware, in general, can make a huge difference in the SLR world, so the theory isn't complete mad science. Time will tell if these results are duplicated elsewhere. Until then, anyone running 3.0 is free to share their own anecdotal evidence.

OK, I'd like to do so now. I've been using each beta iteration of the iPhone 3.0 update since Beta 2 (so, three releases so far) and I can state unequivocally, as I can with the IE 8.0 speed-up myth, that no such thing is happening in my experience. I use the iPhone regularly, and while the 3.0 software, so far, is most obviously marked by bugginess and, annoyingly, the inadvertant triggering of the unnecessary new search panel, it has most certainly not resulted in better pictures. For that, alas, I suspect we would need new camera hardware. Optical and/or mechanical zoom. A flash. Better resolution and optics. You know, something real.

I don't have the religious fervor required to believe this sort of thing. But I do have iPhone photos you can look at. They're at twitpic.com. The ones that are over 30 days old are the old firmware. The newer ones are various versions of iPhone 3.0. Of particular interest: I've taken pictures of different Celtics games over time, from the same location in the stadium.

-- Updated so you can actually see the pictures. :)

So. Which one looks "better"? The one on the left or the one on the right? I think the one on the right looks better, personally (though they're really close). And guess what? That's the old firmware. There are many other similar pictures up there.

Anyway. Anything is possible, of course. But I'm not seeing it personally.

How Mac fanatics see the world

pthurrott — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 18:55:48 GMT

I saw this story mentioned on Macsurfer today and smiled immediately. Because it occurred to me that Mac fanatics--you know, the crazy ones, not Mac users--would completely disagree with its opening assertion:

Corporate Comebacks: Apple

In 1997, Apple was teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. Ten years later, in 2008, it had $24 billion in sales and a total market value of $108 billion -- more than that of McDonald's, Merck and Goldman Sachs.

So. What's wrong with this?

Nothing, if your life is defined by the boundaries of reality. But if you Think Different (tm)--i.e., you're a Mac fanatic--your reaction would be the following:

That is COMPLETE BULLS#$T!!! Apple was never teetering on the brink of bankruptcy! That is history rewriting, and we should start an online petition to prevent the author of this article from ever writing about Apple again!

Yeah. They really do think like that. :)

Microsoft: Celebrate Tax Day by avoiding the Apple Tax

pthurrott — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 23:55:59 GMT

They're getting pretty persistent about this. (Of course, they do have a point. Macs are absolutely more expensive than PCs.) Brandon over at the Windows team blog posts about the company's latest Apple Tax initiative:

With the ailing global economy, I am looking at ways I get better value for my money. One way I can do this if I need to replace a computer is by avoiding the “Apple Tax.”

Microsoft sponsored a new whitepaper (PDF) from Roger Kay of Endpoint Technologies Associates which takes a look at the tax from a tech analyst’s viewpoint. His paper shows the “Apple Tax” is the combination of what people pay up front when purchasing a Mac and what people pay over the life of their computer – the hidden tax.

Roger looked into both aspects in his whitepaper, and has discovered some interesting findings around the “hidden tax” of owning a Mac – using the scenario of a hypothetical family of 4 and their costs over a five year period. Knowing that Tax Day is just around the corner here in the US (April 15), I decided to have a little fun with his findings by building a mock up tax form using Roger’s numbers that show the whopping difference this family would get purchasing Windows PCs over Macs: $3,367.

What would you do with a $3,367 “Apple Tax Return”?

I suppose you could buy a Mac. One Mac. :)

Server Quest II: A Day in a Geek's Life

pthurrott — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 14:35:59 GMT

Remember those awesome Sierra "Quest" adventures from the late 1980's and early 1990's? Well, here's something that will completely sully that memory and use it like a dishrag. You've been warned.

Courtesy of Microsoft:

Sorry. :)

One last look at the 'Lauren' I'm a PC ad

pthurrott — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:37:28 GMT

The tech world--especially the Mac world--is still aflame in some sort of weird controversy over Microsoft's latest "I'm a PC" ad, the one in which Lauren buys a $699 HP laptop. There's been all kinds of silliness about this ad. But there's also been some more reasoned commentary as well. My favorite might be Todd Bishop's.

I asked Microsoft for the precise PC shown in the ad, then compiled the chart below. This isn't an exhaustive list of specs, but here's how Lauren's prized HP Pavilion dv7-1245dx stacks up against Apple's 17-inch MacBook Pro.

Just so we're clear: For the price of a single 17-inch MacBook Pro laptop, Lauren could have bought FOUR HP laptops. LOL.

Yes, there's way more to this comparison than that. But the whole notion of the Apple Tax is so very true. And while it may not normally be a 300 percent markup, it's always there.

iMac shuffle

pthurrott — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 19:27:59 GMT

Good stuff:

The simplest Mac you'll ever use.

Introducing the new iMac shuffle. It’s the desktop that had everything. Now, there’s less. We've taken out that pesky glass screen and carved the entire computer out of aluminum, for extra sturdiness. Why no screen? Well, we wanted to make the iMac shuffle even more lightweight than its predecessors, and make sure that there was nothing to distract you from the Apple logo. For inspiration, we looked to our newest, most brillant product... the new iPod shuffle.

Amazingly Uncomplicated

Taking out the screen allowed us to make the iMac even thinner. Seriously, if we turned it to the side, you nearly wouldn't be able to see it. We've also built in our latest technology - VoiceOver. We liked moving the iPod controls out of the iPod shuffle so much that we decided to replace the keyboard and mouse with the same elegant input device...our inline remote. With the combination of VoiceOver and the remote, you'll never miss your old screen. Who needs all those colors anyway? We've enclosed a complete 72,000 page manual that will tell you everything you need to know about navigating using the remote. Using just those 3 buttons, remote, you can easily jump to any window, launch any program...edit multi-layered Photoshop documents, anything your heart desires, you can imagine doing.

Ports? Who needs those?

We've also taken out all of those unnecessary USB, Firewire and display ports. We always remove at least one useful port/storage device at random from each new Mac revision, so we figured that we'd just get a jump on ourselves and remove them all this time. Normally we replace them with a newer port/device (Floppy to CD-ROM, or DVI to Mini DisplayPort), but since we're so far ahead of ourselves, we honestly just don't have anything to replace them with yet. After removing them, we found that we enjoyed the clean lines of this smooth metal chassis so much that honestly, we just might not bring any ports back.

What'd we leave in? The power button and the bottom-facing speakers. That way you can hear the amazingly impressive Mac startup chime and VoiceOver in all its glory.

It's the same iMac you love inside, with nothing to get in your way on the outside.

Any color you want...The choice is yours!

The new iMac shuffle is available in any color you want, as long as it's silver on silver.

LOL. Thanks Sebastian V. for the link.