The task analysis is the most important part of instructional design: but what if you have an overly complicated topic? For instance, suppose you have a language that you would like to teach (German, French, Perl, C++), and you want to break it down into usable, manageable chunks for instruction. How would you do it? The idea is daunting; so daunting in fact that many language instructors simply go to the established curriculum design from ages past, and go with it. While it has a proven track record, is it really the way to go?
The analysis should instead be hinged not on what could be taught, but what the end goal is based on. This is called the Problem-Solution document, or a clear declaration of what need you intend to meet and the degree that need will be met. So, with this in mind, the language goal isn't as daunting. Here is an example:
The Problem
Many people do not have a working knowledge of German, and therefore cannot function well within an all German-speaking environment.
The Solution
Provide the learner with basic grammar, vocabulary, and phrases to allow for productive interaction within a German-speaking environment, to the extent that the learner is able to understand basic requests and communicate same.
The above outlines a specific, measurable need: students need to understand basic requests when spoken to them, and communicate those same basic requests in a coherent fashion. Notice, a comprehensive discussion of the language is not required, nor a comprehensive history of the language. Just the basics that can be measured by success in both understanding and communicating with someone in a German environment. Already we have avoided the most common pitfall in most reference books that bill themselves as "learning tools". Learning materials are not course materials, and vice versa. There is a time for detail, and a time for simple instruction.
So, with the goal in mind, we can start our learning process on the following premise: 1) our learners need to understand some basic grammar, 2) our learners need to know come basic vocabulary, 3) our learners need to know how both grammar and vocabulary work together to create a comprehensible phrase. Then, the phrases can be tested to see if the comprehension of our students is where it should be. Now that we have our three "jobs" to accomplish within the course, we can move on to the various tasks that are required to understand the grammar, vocabulary, and phrase utility.
Often times you may hear (or read as the case may be) me complain about instructional books, primarily from the Tech industry. This is because the Tech industry (among others) has been inundated for years by experts that definitely know their stuff, but don't necessarily know how to help others learn. The popular RTFM (read the freaking manual) reply is far too prevalent today, and underlines the lack of willingness to put the effort into education. It may be "funny" to the one posting it, but to those searching out for help it becomes frustration. Either that, or it shows a lack of knowledge that is then hidden behind a mask of superiority. Which do you think comes to mind when I read such a response while looking for a solution?
This is why those in charge of training and education need to step up to the challenge. So many people out there need to understand how to use the new technologies, information, and tools that are available in order to better their own job (and consequently, the rest of the economy), and it is up to educators that are dedicated to developing proper instructional designs to convey this information. Whether it be in a book, online, or in a classroom, the techniques and task analyses are the same.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Trying to Understand Autism
Recently my 3 year old son was diagnosed with autism. We took him into a speech therapist after I finally convinced my wife and her family that his lack of speech at 3 was not normal and needed to be addressed. The speech therapist diagnosed his speech development at 11 months, and identified some common behaviors that were typical with autistic children.
At this point, my mind seemed to turn off. I was concerned for my son's chances of having autism, because my older brother has symptoms similar to autism. This brought about a lot of fear, anxiety, and almost hopelessness because I didn't know much about autism other than stories of severe cases.
The therapist reminded me that he couldn't diagnose autism, but gave us some options for speech development and recommended us to the University of Utah for his actual diagnosis. My wife cried as we went home, and I remained numb. We started that day to get our son into the system, which could (and does) take weeks to get to the end goal of getting help for him.
Since then we have met with a behavioral specialist, and I started doing some research online to understand autism. I checked out the National Autism Association website, which gave me a lot of good information.
Autism isn't genetic, though it does tend to run in families. The reason why they don't call it genetic is because researchers have yet to find the "autism gene" that would identify autistic characteristics. That, and the fact that autism diagnoses are more common, suggest that autism is environmentally triggered. The problem is, the trigger hasn't been found.
Some believe that autism is caused by immunizations due to a mercury-based preservatives, though it has yet to be proven. There are also a lot of similarities between mercury poisoning and autism, but again it hasn't been proven conclusively to be the link.
While speaking with the behavioral specialist, she noted that my son has a very mild form of autism that is effecting only his speech and interaction. This is because he has already started to write his own name (on his own, I might add), and has mastered many skills that other children his age are not commonly doing. His comprehension and problem-solving skills are impeccable, which really impressed the specialist.
So, now I no longer feel as afraid or concerned for my autistic son. He is scheduled for pre-school, where he will have his own teacher that will work only with him. They also figure that he will be fully main-streamed into the school system by the first or second grade. We are also going to work on his speech at home with a combination of pictures and American Sign Language, to help him better communicate his needs and wants.
And the most encouraging news so far: my son has started talking! He's speaking words more than once, and being more regular in his communication. While most parents with 3 year olds are complaining about the incessant questions and talking of their kids, my wife and I rejoice in every slurred word my son says more than just once. Our dream is to have our son rise to his full potential and overcome his disability.
I know that this isn't a normal post for my blog, but I want to reach out to any readers that have autistic children, or are concerned about their child's development. Autism covers a range of severity, and most autistic children tend to be exceptionally intelligent. They just have trouble communicating or interacting. If you have any questions or concerns regarding your child's development, get them tested as early as possible. The earlier they are tested and diagnosed, the better their chances are to halt and even reverse the symptoms.
At this point, my mind seemed to turn off. I was concerned for my son's chances of having autism, because my older brother has symptoms similar to autism. This brought about a lot of fear, anxiety, and almost hopelessness because I didn't know much about autism other than stories of severe cases.
The therapist reminded me that he couldn't diagnose autism, but gave us some options for speech development and recommended us to the University of Utah for his actual diagnosis. My wife cried as we went home, and I remained numb. We started that day to get our son into the system, which could (and does) take weeks to get to the end goal of getting help for him.
Since then we have met with a behavioral specialist, and I started doing some research online to understand autism. I checked out the National Autism Association website, which gave me a lot of good information.
Autism isn't genetic, though it does tend to run in families. The reason why they don't call it genetic is because researchers have yet to find the "autism gene" that would identify autistic characteristics. That, and the fact that autism diagnoses are more common, suggest that autism is environmentally triggered. The problem is, the trigger hasn't been found.
Some believe that autism is caused by immunizations due to a mercury-based preservatives, though it has yet to be proven. There are also a lot of similarities between mercury poisoning and autism, but again it hasn't been proven conclusively to be the link.
While speaking with the behavioral specialist, she noted that my son has a very mild form of autism that is effecting only his speech and interaction. This is because he has already started to write his own name (on his own, I might add), and has mastered many skills that other children his age are not commonly doing. His comprehension and problem-solving skills are impeccable, which really impressed the specialist.
So, now I no longer feel as afraid or concerned for my autistic son. He is scheduled for pre-school, where he will have his own teacher that will work only with him. They also figure that he will be fully main-streamed into the school system by the first or second grade. We are also going to work on his speech at home with a combination of pictures and American Sign Language, to help him better communicate his needs and wants.
And the most encouraging news so far: my son has started talking! He's speaking words more than once, and being more regular in his communication. While most parents with 3 year olds are complaining about the incessant questions and talking of their kids, my wife and I rejoice in every slurred word my son says more than just once. Our dream is to have our son rise to his full potential and overcome his disability.
I know that this isn't a normal post for my blog, but I want to reach out to any readers that have autistic children, or are concerned about their child's development. Autism covers a range of severity, and most autistic children tend to be exceptionally intelligent. They just have trouble communicating or interacting. If you have any questions or concerns regarding your child's development, get them tested as early as possible. The earlier they are tested and diagnosed, the better their chances are to halt and even reverse the symptoms.
Trying to Understand Autism
Recently my 3 year old son was diagnosed with autism. We took him into a speech therapist after I finally convinced my wife and her family that his lack of speech at 3 was not normal and needed to be addressed. The speech therapist diagnosed his speech development at 11 months, and identified some common behaviors that were typical with autistic children.
At this point, my mind seemed to turn off. I was concerned for my son's chances of having autism, because my older brother has symptoms similar to autism. This brought about a lot of fear, anxiety, and almost hopelessness because I didn't know much about autism other than stories of severe cases.
The therapist reminded me that he couldn't diagnose autism, but gave us some options for speech development and recommended us to the University of Utah for his actual diagnosis. My wife cried as we went home, and I remained numb. We started that day to get our son into the system, which could (and does) take weeks to get to the end goal of getting help for him.
Since then we have met with a behavioral specialist, and I started doing some research online to understand autism. I checked out the National Autism Association website, which gave me a lot of good information.
Autism isn't genetic, though it does tend to run in families. The reason why they don't call it genetic is because researchers have yet to find the "autism gene" that would identify autistic characteristics. That, and the fact that autism diagnoses are more common, suggest that autism is environmentally triggered. The problem is, the trigger hasn't been found.
Some believe that autism is caused by immunizations due to a mercury-based preservatives, though it has yet to be proven. There are also a lot of similarities between mercury poisoning and autism, but again it hasn't been proven conclusively to be the link.
While speaking with the behavioral specialist, she noted that my son has a very mild form of autism that is effecting only his speech and interaction. This is because he has already started to write his own name (on his own, I might add), and has mastered many skills that other children his age are not commonly doing. His comprehension and problem-solving skills are impeccable, which really impressed the specialist.
So, now I no longer feel as afraid or concerned for my autistic son. He is scheduled for pre-school, where he will have his own teacher that will work only with him. They also figure that he will be fully main-streamed into the school system by the first or second grade. We are also going to work on his speech at home with a combination of pictures and American Sign Language, to help him better communicate his needs and wants.
And the most encouraging news so far: my son has started talking! He's speaking words more than once, and being more regular in his communication. While most parents with 3 year olds are complaining about the incessant questions and talking of their kids, my wife and I rejoice in every slurred word my son says more than just once. Our dream is to have our son rise to his full potential and overcome his disability.
I know that this isn't a normal post for my blog, but I want to reach out to any readers that have autistic children, or are concerned about their child's development. Autism covers a range of severity, and most autistic children tend to be exceptionally intelligent. They just have trouble communicating or interacting. If you have any questions or concerns regarding your child's development, get them tested as early as possible. The earlier they are tested and diagnosed, the better their chances are to halt and even reverse the symptoms.
At this point, my mind seemed to turn off. I was concerned for my son's chances of having autism, because my older brother has symptoms similar to autism. This brought about a lot of fear, anxiety, and almost hopelessness because I didn't know much about autism other than stories of severe cases.
The therapist reminded me that he couldn't diagnose autism, but gave us some options for speech development and recommended us to the University of Utah for his actual diagnosis. My wife cried as we went home, and I remained numb. We started that day to get our son into the system, which could (and does) take weeks to get to the end goal of getting help for him.
Since then we have met with a behavioral specialist, and I started doing some research online to understand autism. I checked out the National Autism Association website, which gave me a lot of good information.
Autism isn't genetic, though it does tend to run in families. The reason why they don't call it genetic is because researchers have yet to find the "autism gene" that would identify autistic characteristics. That, and the fact that autism diagnoses are more common, suggest that autism is environmentally triggered. The problem is, the trigger hasn't been found.
Some believe that autism is caused by immunizations due to a mercury-based preservatives, though it has yet to be proven. There are also a lot of similarities between mercury poisoning and autism, but again it hasn't been proven conclusively to be the link.
While speaking with the behavioral specialist, she noted that my son has a very mild form of autism that is effecting only his speech and interaction. This is because he has already started to write his own name (on his own, I might add), and has mastered many skills that other children his age are not commonly doing. His comprehension and problem-solving skills are impeccable, which really impressed the specialist.
So, now I no longer feel as afraid or concerned for my autistic son. He is scheduled for pre-school, where he will have his own teacher that will work only with him. They also figure that he will be fully main-streamed into the school system by the first or second grade. We are also going to work on his speech at home with a combination of pictures and American Sign Language, to help him better communicate his needs and wants.
And the most encouraging news so far: my son has started talking! He's speaking words more than once, and being more regular in his communication. While most parents with 3 year olds are complaining about the incessant questions and talking of their kids, my wife and I rejoice in every slurred word my son says more than just once. Our dream is to have our son rise to his full potential and overcome his disability.
I know that this isn't a normal post for my blog, but I want to reach out to any readers that have autistic children, or are concerned about their child's development. Autism covers a range of severity, and most autistic children tend to be exceptionally intelligent. They just have trouble communicating or interacting. If you have any questions or concerns regarding your child's development, get them tested as early as possible. The earlier they are tested and diagnosed, the better their chances are to halt and even reverse the symptoms.
Friday, March 21, 2008
Cognitive Load: When Your Brain Is Full
We have all had that one experience, I'm sure. Sitting in a meeting or classroom, listening to a presentation or watching a demo, and the brain starts to wander. It can happen to different people at different times and have different initial factors, but the reason is the same: cognitive load has been reached.
The Effects of HIgh Cognitive Load
So what is Cognitive Load? Basically, it's the amount of working memory the brain uses to perform tasks. The more tasks you perform, the more cognitive load you heap on your brain.
Of course, there are levels of brain activity that utilize your working memory, and it differs based on the need for understanding. The less you need to assimilate within a given time, the less cognitive load you need to use. It seems like a simple concept, doesn't it? Focus on what you are doing, and eventually you will get there.
Unfortunately, in the world of Professional Training, this is a luxury you can't often afford. People are required to assimilate a lot of information in a very short amount of time. Because their cognitive load is really high, they are less likely to understand the topics that are being discussed. Consequently the learning experience is diminished or negative, leaving the learner confused and even a little scared.
An excellent example I saw was a student that had taken my Excel 2003 Level 1 course. Normally, this would be a very simple class to take, and I like the design because it takes Cognitive Load into consideration for the majority of students. This student, however, was new to Windows platform entirely. So not only was the student trying to understand the Excel interface, but also the Windows interface. The student locked up, and took my entire lunch time to start to feel more comfortable.
Fighting High Cognitive Load
So, what is a course designer to do? You have a high cognitive load requirement to finish the course material in as little time as possible. How can you be sure that your students are maximizing their understanding?
The first thing I would recommend is checking for those peak times when Cognitive Load becomes an issue. The number one cuplrit: Lunch. After lunch, the learner's blood rushes to their stomach to digest their food. As a consequence, the learner's brain has less blood to process information. I call this the Lunchtime Lull, which is best fought by having a less-taxing assignment or fun game that reinforces your principles for the students at a high level, letting their minds rest a bit.
Another problem is all lecture and no practice. While some learners are excellent at auditory learning, most need to apply the lecture at least once to cement the concept in their brain. The process of going through exercises fires additional synapses in the brain, thereby increasing the entries and imprints of the concept within the brain. Of course, the other result is a break between lectures and concepts. Once one principle has been assimilated and applied, the brain feels comfortable enough to move on to the next subject.
The last problem for Cognitive Load that I will point out is overwhelming media. In the world today we have several media outlets that allow access to just about every form of media, and it's not uncommon to see people try to deal with more than one media outlet at a time. How many students do you know do their homework while the TV is on? How about the radio, with non-instrumental music playing?
The brain isn't able to multi-task very well, and will latch on only one function at a time at a high level (processing information). All other functions at that point are placed within the low level functionality, running basically the same level as riding a bike or balancing. As a result, only one media type can be utilized to "learn". Any other media is either a distraction, or is being processed at a low level and not assimilated within the memory.
"But." I hear you say, "I have read a book and watched TV/listened to my favorite lyrics at the same time, and I get by just fine!" Ask yourself how many times you were thinking of the story within the show on TV or listening to the lyrics when you should have been reading. Happen very often? Probably. Another basic concept of the brain is that, just like most forces in nature, it will take the road of least resistance unless forced otherwise. That means that your "distractions" are just your brain telling you it's easier to process the distraction than the material in front of you.
How do you fight this? Well, the first and perhaps most difficult for the learner is to remove the distraction. Have the learners turn off their cell phones while in class, avoid texting someone when they should be working on an assignment, and not sit there and work on their My Space/Facebook page when in a lecture (it's a pet peeve of mine!). If they focus on their work and what they are learning with no distractions (including audio), their cognitive load is decreased.
Something else you can do is just increase your concentration. This is physically more difficult, because it requires a lower Cognitive Load on the material. Why? Because the student needs to increase their cognitive load to increase their concentration. Concentration requires a conscious commitment by the learner to block out any and all distractions. The fewer actual distractions in the room, the more likely it is a learner will be able to learn.
How Does This Affect Me?
We all assimilate information every day, whether it's conscious learning or basic observation. That means we all need to watch our Cognitive Load. Ever wonder why people vegetate in front of a TV? TV shows and commercials are geared to take most if not all of your cognitive load to keep your attention. That way you are less likely to change the channel, and more likely to increase their ratings and ad revenues.
So look at your own life, and see where your Cognitive Load is peaking. Is there a way to reduce it, so that you can maximize your learning and observation? You may be surprised how much more productive you will become if you don't try to multi-task quite so much.
The Effects of HIgh Cognitive Load
So what is Cognitive Load? Basically, it's the amount of working memory the brain uses to perform tasks. The more tasks you perform, the more cognitive load you heap on your brain.
Of course, there are levels of brain activity that utilize your working memory, and it differs based on the need for understanding. The less you need to assimilate within a given time, the less cognitive load you need to use. It seems like a simple concept, doesn't it? Focus on what you are doing, and eventually you will get there.
Unfortunately, in the world of Professional Training, this is a luxury you can't often afford. People are required to assimilate a lot of information in a very short amount of time. Because their cognitive load is really high, they are less likely to understand the topics that are being discussed. Consequently the learning experience is diminished or negative, leaving the learner confused and even a little scared.
An excellent example I saw was a student that had taken my Excel 2003 Level 1 course. Normally, this would be a very simple class to take, and I like the design because it takes Cognitive Load into consideration for the majority of students. This student, however, was new to Windows platform entirely. So not only was the student trying to understand the Excel interface, but also the Windows interface. The student locked up, and took my entire lunch time to start to feel more comfortable.
Fighting High Cognitive Load
So, what is a course designer to do? You have a high cognitive load requirement to finish the course material in as little time as possible. How can you be sure that your students are maximizing their understanding?
The first thing I would recommend is checking for those peak times when Cognitive Load becomes an issue. The number one cuplrit: Lunch. After lunch, the learner's blood rushes to their stomach to digest their food. As a consequence, the learner's brain has less blood to process information. I call this the Lunchtime Lull, which is best fought by having a less-taxing assignment or fun game that reinforces your principles for the students at a high level, letting their minds rest a bit.
Another problem is all lecture and no practice. While some learners are excellent at auditory learning, most need to apply the lecture at least once to cement the concept in their brain. The process of going through exercises fires additional synapses in the brain, thereby increasing the entries and imprints of the concept within the brain. Of course, the other result is a break between lectures and concepts. Once one principle has been assimilated and applied, the brain feels comfortable enough to move on to the next subject.
The last problem for Cognitive Load that I will point out is overwhelming media. In the world today we have several media outlets that allow access to just about every form of media, and it's not uncommon to see people try to deal with more than one media outlet at a time. How many students do you know do their homework while the TV is on? How about the radio, with non-instrumental music playing?
The brain isn't able to multi-task very well, and will latch on only one function at a time at a high level (processing information). All other functions at that point are placed within the low level functionality, running basically the same level as riding a bike or balancing. As a result, only one media type can be utilized to "learn". Any other media is either a distraction, or is being processed at a low level and not assimilated within the memory.
"But." I hear you say, "I have read a book and watched TV/listened to my favorite lyrics at the same time, and I get by just fine!" Ask yourself how many times you were thinking of the story within the show on TV or listening to the lyrics when you should have been reading. Happen very often? Probably. Another basic concept of the brain is that, just like most forces in nature, it will take the road of least resistance unless forced otherwise. That means that your "distractions" are just your brain telling you it's easier to process the distraction than the material in front of you.
How do you fight this? Well, the first and perhaps most difficult for the learner is to remove the distraction. Have the learners turn off their cell phones while in class, avoid texting someone when they should be working on an assignment, and not sit there and work on their My Space/Facebook page when in a lecture (it's a pet peeve of mine!). If they focus on their work and what they are learning with no distractions (including audio), their cognitive load is decreased.
Something else you can do is just increase your concentration. This is physically more difficult, because it requires a lower Cognitive Load on the material. Why? Because the student needs to increase their cognitive load to increase their concentration. Concentration requires a conscious commitment by the learner to block out any and all distractions. The fewer actual distractions in the room, the more likely it is a learner will be able to learn.
How Does This Affect Me?
We all assimilate information every day, whether it's conscious learning or basic observation. That means we all need to watch our Cognitive Load. Ever wonder why people vegetate in front of a TV? TV shows and commercials are geared to take most if not all of your cognitive load to keep your attention. That way you are less likely to change the channel, and more likely to increase their ratings and ad revenues.
So look at your own life, and see where your Cognitive Load is peaking. Is there a way to reduce it, so that you can maximize your learning and observation? You may be surprised how much more productive you will become if you don't try to multi-task quite so much.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
The Task Analysis Revisited
It's been a long time since I have posted anything on instructional development. But yesterday the power was out in my office for the entire day, giving me a chance to work from home. There I started to focus on the course development process again.
Learning To Cook: A Quick Task Analysis
Let's take a deceptively simple topic like learning to cook. There are a lot of self-help books out there, recipes, and even websites that give you some general information, and basically throw you into the deep end. Can it really be that simple to learn how to cook? I thought I would run a quick task analysis on the process to see what I could come up with.
I began by tearing down the process of cooking to several jobs. You have the basic understanding of the tools involved, the need for clean environments and fresh food, and the processing techniques to prepare the food. I then looked at the various methods of cooking, depending on the desired outcome. I then ordered them approximately based on the jobs that need to be understood in order to successfully complete the next job. This follows the Constructivist method of instruction, allowing for layered modules that build upon each other.
I ended up with the following breakdown:
1. Equipment
2. Measurements
3. Cleanliness
4. Preparing Food
5. Seasoning Food
6. Heating Food
As actual consumption of the food is not technically part of the cooking process, I left it out of the list. The idea being that once you are done, you can move on to the next job: eating food. ^_^
From these basic jobs expected from a cook, I can then break them down into individual tasks. For example Equipment could be broken down into these sections:
1.1 Cleaning Tools
1.2 Hand Tools
1.3 Preparation Tools
1.4 Cooking Surfaces
1.5 Measurement Tools
These tasks can be broken down even further into sub-tasks, which can be broken down still further into your skills and knowledge. From the eventual breakdown, you get a complete outline of your course, all from the analysis. At this point your instructor can fill in the actual lecture material themselves, either on the fly while teaching or (if in an online environment) with carefully structured lectures.
I could have been quoted as saying that a subject matter expert (SME) isn't necessarily a good teacher. That's because (among other things) a SME doesn't have a concept of task analysis. The second concept that a lot of SME's have trouble with is Cognitive Load, which will be a topic for another post.
If you are looking to teach anything, it's a good idea that you focus a lot of your time in analysis. Task Analysis can take a long time to complete, but in the end it makes the rest of the process a lot easier. You can also target specific portions of your analysis after you have evaluated course success.
Learning To Cook: A Quick Task Analysis
Let's take a deceptively simple topic like learning to cook. There are a lot of self-help books out there, recipes, and even websites that give you some general information, and basically throw you into the deep end. Can it really be that simple to learn how to cook? I thought I would run a quick task analysis on the process to see what I could come up with.
I began by tearing down the process of cooking to several jobs. You have the basic understanding of the tools involved, the need for clean environments and fresh food, and the processing techniques to prepare the food. I then looked at the various methods of cooking, depending on the desired outcome. I then ordered them approximately based on the jobs that need to be understood in order to successfully complete the next job. This follows the Constructivist method of instruction, allowing for layered modules that build upon each other.
I ended up with the following breakdown:
1. Equipment
2. Measurements
3. Cleanliness
4. Preparing Food
5. Seasoning Food
6. Heating Food
As actual consumption of the food is not technically part of the cooking process, I left it out of the list. The idea being that once you are done, you can move on to the next job: eating food. ^_^
From these basic jobs expected from a cook, I can then break them down into individual tasks. For example Equipment could be broken down into these sections:
1.1 Cleaning Tools
1.2 Hand Tools
1.3 Preparation Tools
1.4 Cooking Surfaces
1.5 Measurement Tools
These tasks can be broken down even further into sub-tasks, which can be broken down still further into your skills and knowledge. From the eventual breakdown, you get a complete outline of your course, all from the analysis. At this point your instructor can fill in the actual lecture material themselves, either on the fly while teaching or (if in an online environment) with carefully structured lectures.
I could have been quoted as saying that a subject matter expert (SME) isn't necessarily a good teacher. That's because (among other things) a SME doesn't have a concept of task analysis. The second concept that a lot of SME's have trouble with is Cognitive Load, which will be a topic for another post.
If you are looking to teach anything, it's a good idea that you focus a lot of your time in analysis. Task Analysis can take a long time to complete, but in the end it makes the rest of the process a lot easier. You can also target specific portions of your analysis after you have evaluated course success.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Kerberos Issues with Open Directory 10.5? Here is a Sure-Fire Fix
I thought I would post this, as we had a similar situation within our class with this issue. At times, when you try to start Kerberos in Mac OS X 10.5 Server, the domain gives you trouble. The first thing you should do is check the host name with changeip, and determine the issue with your DNS. Then, you can fix your Kerberos issues with the following steps as found here on Apple's documents page:
1. Fix Your DNS: This is necessary, otherwise steps below will not work.
2. Fix your /etc/hosts file: Best done in Terminal. Run sudo bash and authenticate to get to root, and then run vi /etc/hosts. Once in there, add your server's IP Address and fully qualified domain name, like this: 10.1.0.1 mainserver.pretendco.com
3. Set your Host Name: This can be done as root with the following command: scutil --set HostName mainserver.pretendco.com. Replace the Mainserver entry with your own domain name in this step, and all subsequent steps you see.
4. Initialize Kerberos: This requires three steps (and being logged in as root):
slapconfig -kerberize diradmin MAINSERVER.PRETENDCO.COM (diradmin would be the directory admin login name)
sso_util configure -r MAINSERVER.PRETENDCO.COM -f /LDAPv3/127.0.0.1 -a diradmin -p diradmin_password -v 1 all (replace diradmin and diradmin_password with your directory admin and password)
sso_util configure -r MAINSERVER.PRETENDCO.COM -f /LDAPv3/127.0.0.1 -a diradmin -p diradmin_password -v 1 ldap
Once you finish these steps, reboot the machine, and check your Server Admin utility. You should see that you have all your services running on your Open Directory Master.
Even with this trouble, Kerberos seems really simple to set up with a Mac server. I've never tried it on a Linux server, but from the expressions on some friend's faces when I suggest it, it doesn't seem to be very simple. I'm not sure how it's implemented in Active Directory either, though I do know it's just as frustrating when it doesn't work.
1. Fix Your DNS: This is necessary, otherwise steps below will not work.
2. Fix your /etc/hosts file: Best done in Terminal. Run sudo bash and authenticate to get to root, and then run vi /etc/hosts. Once in there, add your server's IP Address and fully qualified domain name, like this: 10.1.0.1 mainserver.pretendco.com
3. Set your Host Name: This can be done as root with the following command: scutil --set HostName mainserver.pretendco.com. Replace the Mainserver entry with your own domain name in this step, and all subsequent steps you see.
4. Initialize Kerberos: This requires three steps (and being logged in as root):
slapconfig -kerberize diradmin MAINSERVER.PRETENDCO.COM (diradmin would be the directory admin login name)
sso_util configure -r MAINSERVER.PRETENDCO.COM -f /LDAPv3/127.0.0.1 -a diradmin -p diradmin_password -v 1 all (replace diradmin and diradmin_password with your directory admin and password)
sso_util configure -r MAINSERVER.PRETENDCO.COM -f /LDAPv3/127.0.0.1 -a diradmin -p diradmin_password -v 1 ldap
Once you finish these steps, reboot the machine, and check your Server Admin utility. You should see that you have all your services running on your Open Directory Master.
Even with this trouble, Kerberos seems really simple to set up with a Mac server. I've never tried it on a Linux server, but from the expressions on some friend's faces when I suggest it, it doesn't seem to be very simple. I'm not sure how it's implemented in Active Directory either, though I do know it's just as frustrating when it doesn't work.
Friday, March 14, 2008
Happy Pi Day!
I love March 14th. It's the perfect day to eat pie. Why? Because the date is 3.14, best celebrated at 1:59. And how do you celebrate Pi Day? Eat your favorite pie!
I'd like to challenge you all to find an unusual pie for today to try. Not up for sweets? Find a savory pie or pie recipe and share it! Meat pies have a long and outstanding history, and should be celebrated as well.
Enjoy!
I'd like to challenge you all to find an unusual pie for today to try. Not up for sweets? Find a savory pie or pie recipe and share it! Meat pies have a long and outstanding history, and should be celebrated as well.
Enjoy!
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Gender Roles In Pre-History as Reflected in Food
Recently, I started to read History of Food by Maguelonne Toussaint-Samat. It's an anthropological look at the development of food from pre-history to the modern day, and how each aspect of our food production was added and then adapted into our society. For those of you who are interested in culinary anthropology, this book is definitely for you. I will be writing a full review once I finish the book.
The section I just finished covered hunting and gathering, and it focused on the gender roles of each. It seems that men had what modern society may consider the "exciting" jobs, and the women had a more safe and sheltered (comparatively) life. Was this because of some gender discrimination? Were women being oppressed?
The explanation was surprising, but not really unexpected if you are familiar with anthropology in general. If you haven't, let me break down how I understood it:
Women in Pre-History
Women in pre-history were not treated as objects or weaklings, but rather practically worshipped. This is because of their creative power, the ability to deliver children. As such, they were highly prized and protected from the dangerous elements of life in general. Men would guard them zealously, walking before them at all times. Why? Because if an animal were to attack, it would attack the first person that it can identify.
But women were not placed on the proverbial pedestal either. They worked, and worked hard. Women gathered the safer forms of food (i.e., vegetation and grains), providing the majority of the caloric and nutritional intake for the family. Because of the natural progression of things, women also began to sow these seeds close by, and began gardens. Gardens became farms, which then lead to a need for organization and societies. So, in a way, women were responsible for civilizing the world.
Men in Pre-History
So what did the men do? Well, because they didn't birth and suckle the children while they were young, they needed to be protectors. They began with hunting as a form of high-fat food stuffs, and gathered honey (with the exception of South America, where women would gather honey from sting-less bees). Because of the danger of both these endeavors, men were the natural choice. Their survival didn't effect the survival of their children at near the level of the survival of the mother.
Because hunting required organization at a surface level (no personal connections are really needed), men had a surface and superficial nature. They made and broke relationships freely, made alliances when it suited them, and dismissed them just as freely. This placed them in the perfect location for politics once woman had created the society.
An interesting side note is that religion was often credited for forcing men to hold more depth to their relationships and values, where they naturally would avoid. The concepts of honesty, honor, dedication, etc. are all value systems that women had naturally with their need for social child rearing, and men didn't have because it wasn't flexible enough to work well on the hunt.
Modern Days
The modern day has complicated the basic "pre-history" statement I have made, because the roles for men and women have changed substantially since pre-history. Societies have experimented with various systems of rights for both men and women, moral and religious systems, etc., and it seems that we are determined to keep the experiment going. But I find it fascinating that women were behind the agrarian revolution that allowed for societies and eventually civilization (greek version: i.e. city dwellers).
It's always intriguing to see the history of anything, because you get a more rich understanding of the current development of a society. One thing that my Anthropology professor would always say is that you can't ignore your past. Once something has developed, it can be changed or altered, but never removed completely.
The section I just finished covered hunting and gathering, and it focused on the gender roles of each. It seems that men had what modern society may consider the "exciting" jobs, and the women had a more safe and sheltered (comparatively) life. Was this because of some gender discrimination? Were women being oppressed?
The explanation was surprising, but not really unexpected if you are familiar with anthropology in general. If you haven't, let me break down how I understood it:
Women in Pre-History
Women in pre-history were not treated as objects or weaklings, but rather practically worshipped. This is because of their creative power, the ability to deliver children. As such, they were highly prized and protected from the dangerous elements of life in general. Men would guard them zealously, walking before them at all times. Why? Because if an animal were to attack, it would attack the first person that it can identify.
But women were not placed on the proverbial pedestal either. They worked, and worked hard. Women gathered the safer forms of food (i.e., vegetation and grains), providing the majority of the caloric and nutritional intake for the family. Because of the natural progression of things, women also began to sow these seeds close by, and began gardens. Gardens became farms, which then lead to a need for organization and societies. So, in a way, women were responsible for civilizing the world.
Men in Pre-History
So what did the men do? Well, because they didn't birth and suckle the children while they were young, they needed to be protectors. They began with hunting as a form of high-fat food stuffs, and gathered honey (with the exception of South America, where women would gather honey from sting-less bees). Because of the danger of both these endeavors, men were the natural choice. Their survival didn't effect the survival of their children at near the level of the survival of the mother.
Because hunting required organization at a surface level (no personal connections are really needed), men had a surface and superficial nature. They made and broke relationships freely, made alliances when it suited them, and dismissed them just as freely. This placed them in the perfect location for politics once woman had created the society.
An interesting side note is that religion was often credited for forcing men to hold more depth to their relationships and values, where they naturally would avoid. The concepts of honesty, honor, dedication, etc. are all value systems that women had naturally with their need for social child rearing, and men didn't have because it wasn't flexible enough to work well on the hunt.
Modern Days
The modern day has complicated the basic "pre-history" statement I have made, because the roles for men and women have changed substantially since pre-history. Societies have experimented with various systems of rights for both men and women, moral and religious systems, etc., and it seems that we are determined to keep the experiment going. But I find it fascinating that women were behind the agrarian revolution that allowed for societies and eventually civilization (greek version: i.e. city dwellers).
It's always intriguing to see the history of anything, because you get a more rich understanding of the current development of a society. One thing that my Anthropology professor would always say is that you can't ignore your past. Once something has developed, it can be changed or altered, but never removed completely.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
iPod and iPhone Stands, and Why Make an iPod Slate
Normally I don't post links to products that I currently have no use for, but these were so cool on at least two levels, that I couldn't resist.
While reading my news articles for Apple rumors and potential products, I saw an ad for these iPod and iPhone stands. Normally I wouldn't care, but the design was pretty neat.
But there is another reason: Part of my hopeful release of a UMPC from Apple (the iPod Slate) would be to have a functional stand so I can use the machine as a regular computer. Tether a Bluetooth keyboard and mouse to it, and I'm set. The problem is, I can't see one being functionally added to the case design without making it out of plastic or lightweight thin metal, which will mean it will almost certainly break.
But I see that a third party has already been creating stands for the iPhone and iPod Touch (as well as other iPods), so Apple wouldn't need to design a stand into the case. This would simplify the design (right up Apple's street), and give a third party a great boost.
Does this mean that Apple is going to release the iPod Slate? No, not really. In fact, there is no evidence (outside of wild rumor and a few suggested insider speculation) that such a device will be made available in the near future. But, it's still a great idea, and I hope Apple does think of it.
Why should they even bother, though? What would make an iPod Slate more marketable than the iPod Touch, or even a MacBook Air? Well, let me list the reasons (assuming that my criteria and setup is met):
Presentations
Laptops and Notebooks have one huge disadvantage in the presentation arena: Their size. They are bulky, even the sub-notebooks. Why? Because of the screen. The clamshell design is great for working on projects, coding, and gaming, but gets in the way when trying to present to a group of people. It stands out, and because it stands out it can distract from the overall presentation.
Ultra Mobile PC's have the benefit of being a tablet, so they lay down flat. They also have the benefit of being lightweight and small, so it can be placed just about anywhere without being too visible. This leads to less distraction (after the initial "Wow! That's soo cool!"), and you can get down to the actual presentation.
Meetings
There was a time when I thought I could take my laptop into a meeting and take notes. I actually meant to on several occasions, but I didn't. Why? Because it was just too big and bulky. And I have a 12" PowerBook! Instead, I tried to take my PDA (Toshiba Pocket PC), and tried to take notes on that. I didn't have a keyboard, and so I was left to try to use the handwriting recognition or the screen keyboard: Neither worked very well. So that didn't work for me either.
But, enter in an Ultra Mobile PC with a bluetooth keyboard, and tether a Bluetooth Lazer Virtual keyboard to it, and just start typing. The UMPC can even remain in your portfolio (if you are good enough at typing), and never have to be present in the meeting. This takes up less space on the table, and no one is distracted by typing keys (just thumping fingers).
The key to this input device is size and portability. The PDA has been under scrutiny for years because of the size restrictions and processor limits. Voice recognition, Speech to Text, etc. that would make the PDA an almost perfect tool hasn't been available because of the loss of processing power in the interest of battery restraints.
But that's all changing, both with more efficient batteries on the way, and more powerful, but energy wise processors being developed. The PDA could become a full-blown PC without having the need for a huge power supply or fans.
General Computing
The typical computing experience in the past for the majority of those users out there is email, web, and Solitaire. You may laugh at this, but while working for Packard Bell NEC, I learned of hundreds of people that bought a thousand dollars worth of computer just so that they could play solitaire. Any PDA is able to fit this need, and do it well.
But the computer usage has become more specialized, and will continue to specialize. The need for a mobile computer that can do their task and do it well is growing, and the tasks are varied. Some people are convinced that having multiple devices that do their job well and interact is the way to go (i.e., the old UNIX model of programming). Unfortunately, devices are not small enough for that to be really possible. So, we need some devices that can multitask.
Enter in the UMPC. While it can technically take the place of an iPod for entertainment, it needs to do more. It needs to run software, provide presentation media, and allow for specialized software to be installed. It also needs to be reliable and very user friendly.
Why, you ask? Have you ever been in a doctor's office, and watched the doctor try to use a computer to enter in your medical information? Many doctors are moving to a more mobile environment where they can enter in information into a central database, and they need mobile PCs that can do it. PDA's just don't cut it because they are too difficult to enter information, or they are too underpowered to utilize a full program and have to use a watered down program with no features.
But Why Hasn't It Worked In The Past?
You may be saying at this point, "Yes, I get your points. But UMPC's have been around for years as a concept, but never taken off. Why should Apple even think about it?" And you would be right, the platform hasn't taken off quite yet. Some of it has to do with the mentality of the makers of the UMPC, but most of it has to do with the chosen software.
Mentality Killer
Other UMPC developers have had the same vision that I had: A full fledged PC that works like a PDA when needed. But, unfortunately, the whole PDA idea just stuck. The first problem is the idea of more is more: Chuck it full of holes for peripherals, and the gadgets will sell. Unfortunately, that doesn't work, and it drives up cost. So now you have a really expensive device that works like a PDA, and sacrifice size for the adapters.
A lot of PC commentators may argue with me on this, but I still maintain that most people don't utilize most of the peripheral slots that are available for their devices now. What do they use? Mostly USB, Wireless (Bluetooth and WiFi), a PC Card slot for Cellular Wireless (if not built in), a VGA/DVI adapter for presentations, and perhaps a FireWire cable if you are syncing a heavy media device. So what is missing?
1. SD Cards (and other media): While I love SD Cards because of their size, you don't really need a built in card slot. You can get a USB reader for the device for next to nothing on eBay (I did), and use your USB slot. Need more than one USB slot? Use a hub. That's really the reason why USB remains to this day the most popular peripheral platform.
Now, I can see great potential in using SD Card slots as hard drives. the Eee PC is able to boot off of an SD Card, presenting a great option should the SSD drive die on the machine. And perhaps there should be an SD Card slot, but what about Compact Flash? Or MMC Cards? Or all the other possible storage media out there? Should they also be supported? Wouldn't it just be easier to get a USB adapter, and use the storage when you need it? I'll leave it up to other people to debate.
2. Gaming Ports: Joysticks on a UMPC? Well, if you want to make it a truly powerful draw to the 20-somethings, it's almost a given. But do you really need a gaming port? No, not really. Leave the heavy gaming platforms to the Desktops and Laptops.
3. Optical Drives: Many people are screaming at Apple for not providing an optical drive for many of their devices. The Macbook Air has an external drive if you need it, and the Apple TV just doesn't have the option. But, when you think about it, how often (outside of required disks for gaming) do you really use the optical drive? Perhaps you burn backups every once in a while, or burn a CD from your music collection... when else do you use it?
I know that I don't use an Optical Drive much, because it just doesn't hold enough media. Instead I use network drives, or I use a USB/FireWire drive to store and transfer media. The optical drive is used on a main machine for ripping CDs and DVDs, and then I burn a hard copy of the media for backup use. That's it, nothing else. 90% of the time I don't use an optical drive. So why should I have that space taken up? It just doesn't make sense.
Software
Okay, for those of you who are married to your platform and loyal to the end, you can write this off as my Apple Fanboy rant. But, the reality of the failure in UMPCs in general in my mind is because of the software platform (i.e., Windows). Microsoft has a platform that has been riddled with bugs, security holes, and instability. Ultimately I don't blame the code so much as the core platform: It's just not UNIX. But, because of the whole package in Windows, you have an unreliable device.
Now, let's say you replace the non-UNIX platform with a UNIX platform: Which should it be? Linux is still constantly in development, playing catchup with hardware developers. Why? Not because there is a problem with the platform, but rather because Linux developers are making Linux all things to all platforms. It works, but delays the deployment on newer hardware.
Now, let's look at the Macintosh platform. Apple is able to build their machines so well because they only have set hardware specifications. Why? Because anything more would overwhelm the Mach Kernel, and place the development into the same muddy that GNU's HURD has been trying to navigate. Instead, Apple streamlines the code by streamlining their hardware offerings. That means a streamlined user experience with little to no problems with functionality.
Anyway, that is my little rant. I hope someone from Cupertino is listening, because I really think that an Apple UMPC would be a wonderful thing. Add to that the possibility to install software, and you have an even better platform. Don't overload it with too many peripherals, and you have a sleek, functional device that will get the gob done. You want a gaming platform? Get a gaming platform.
While reading my news articles for Apple rumors and potential products, I saw an ad for these iPod and iPhone stands. Normally I wouldn't care, but the design was pretty neat.
But there is another reason: Part of my hopeful release of a UMPC from Apple (the iPod Slate) would be to have a functional stand so I can use the machine as a regular computer. Tether a Bluetooth keyboard and mouse to it, and I'm set. The problem is, I can't see one being functionally added to the case design without making it out of plastic or lightweight thin metal, which will mean it will almost certainly break.
But I see that a third party has already been creating stands for the iPhone and iPod Touch (as well as other iPods), so Apple wouldn't need to design a stand into the case. This would simplify the design (right up Apple's street), and give a third party a great boost.
Does this mean that Apple is going to release the iPod Slate? No, not really. In fact, there is no evidence (outside of wild rumor and a few suggested insider speculation) that such a device will be made available in the near future. But, it's still a great idea, and I hope Apple does think of it.
Why should they even bother, though? What would make an iPod Slate more marketable than the iPod Touch, or even a MacBook Air? Well, let me list the reasons (assuming that my criteria and setup is met):
Presentations
Laptops and Notebooks have one huge disadvantage in the presentation arena: Their size. They are bulky, even the sub-notebooks. Why? Because of the screen. The clamshell design is great for working on projects, coding, and gaming, but gets in the way when trying to present to a group of people. It stands out, and because it stands out it can distract from the overall presentation.
Ultra Mobile PC's have the benefit of being a tablet, so they lay down flat. They also have the benefit of being lightweight and small, so it can be placed just about anywhere without being too visible. This leads to less distraction (after the initial "Wow! That's soo cool!"), and you can get down to the actual presentation.
Meetings
There was a time when I thought I could take my laptop into a meeting and take notes. I actually meant to on several occasions, but I didn't. Why? Because it was just too big and bulky. And I have a 12" PowerBook! Instead, I tried to take my PDA (Toshiba Pocket PC), and tried to take notes on that. I didn't have a keyboard, and so I was left to try to use the handwriting recognition or the screen keyboard: Neither worked very well. So that didn't work for me either.
But, enter in an Ultra Mobile PC with a bluetooth keyboard, and tether a Bluetooth Lazer Virtual keyboard to it, and just start typing. The UMPC can even remain in your portfolio (if you are good enough at typing), and never have to be present in the meeting. This takes up less space on the table, and no one is distracted by typing keys (just thumping fingers).
The key to this input device is size and portability. The PDA has been under scrutiny for years because of the size restrictions and processor limits. Voice recognition, Speech to Text, etc. that would make the PDA an almost perfect tool hasn't been available because of the loss of processing power in the interest of battery restraints.
But that's all changing, both with more efficient batteries on the way, and more powerful, but energy wise processors being developed. The PDA could become a full-blown PC without having the need for a huge power supply or fans.
General Computing
The typical computing experience in the past for the majority of those users out there is email, web, and Solitaire. You may laugh at this, but while working for Packard Bell NEC, I learned of hundreds of people that bought a thousand dollars worth of computer just so that they could play solitaire. Any PDA is able to fit this need, and do it well.
But the computer usage has become more specialized, and will continue to specialize. The need for a mobile computer that can do their task and do it well is growing, and the tasks are varied. Some people are convinced that having multiple devices that do their job well and interact is the way to go (i.e., the old UNIX model of programming). Unfortunately, devices are not small enough for that to be really possible. So, we need some devices that can multitask.
Enter in the UMPC. While it can technically take the place of an iPod for entertainment, it needs to do more. It needs to run software, provide presentation media, and allow for specialized software to be installed. It also needs to be reliable and very user friendly.
Why, you ask? Have you ever been in a doctor's office, and watched the doctor try to use a computer to enter in your medical information? Many doctors are moving to a more mobile environment where they can enter in information into a central database, and they need mobile PCs that can do it. PDA's just don't cut it because they are too difficult to enter information, or they are too underpowered to utilize a full program and have to use a watered down program with no features.
But Why Hasn't It Worked In The Past?
You may be saying at this point, "Yes, I get your points. But UMPC's have been around for years as a concept, but never taken off. Why should Apple even think about it?" And you would be right, the platform hasn't taken off quite yet. Some of it has to do with the mentality of the makers of the UMPC, but most of it has to do with the chosen software.
Mentality Killer
Other UMPC developers have had the same vision that I had: A full fledged PC that works like a PDA when needed. But, unfortunately, the whole PDA idea just stuck. The first problem is the idea of more is more: Chuck it full of holes for peripherals, and the gadgets will sell. Unfortunately, that doesn't work, and it drives up cost. So now you have a really expensive device that works like a PDA, and sacrifice size for the adapters.
A lot of PC commentators may argue with me on this, but I still maintain that most people don't utilize most of the peripheral slots that are available for their devices now. What do they use? Mostly USB, Wireless (Bluetooth and WiFi), a PC Card slot for Cellular Wireless (if not built in), a VGA/DVI adapter for presentations, and perhaps a FireWire cable if you are syncing a heavy media device. So what is missing?
1. SD Cards (and other media): While I love SD Cards because of their size, you don't really need a built in card slot. You can get a USB reader for the device for next to nothing on eBay (I did), and use your USB slot. Need more than one USB slot? Use a hub. That's really the reason why USB remains to this day the most popular peripheral platform.
Now, I can see great potential in using SD Card slots as hard drives. the Eee PC is able to boot off of an SD Card, presenting a great option should the SSD drive die on the machine. And perhaps there should be an SD Card slot, but what about Compact Flash? Or MMC Cards? Or all the other possible storage media out there? Should they also be supported? Wouldn't it just be easier to get a USB adapter, and use the storage when you need it? I'll leave it up to other people to debate.
2. Gaming Ports: Joysticks on a UMPC? Well, if you want to make it a truly powerful draw to the 20-somethings, it's almost a given. But do you really need a gaming port? No, not really. Leave the heavy gaming platforms to the Desktops and Laptops.
3. Optical Drives: Many people are screaming at Apple for not providing an optical drive for many of their devices. The Macbook Air has an external drive if you need it, and the Apple TV just doesn't have the option. But, when you think about it, how often (outside of required disks for gaming) do you really use the optical drive? Perhaps you burn backups every once in a while, or burn a CD from your music collection... when else do you use it?
I know that I don't use an Optical Drive much, because it just doesn't hold enough media. Instead I use network drives, or I use a USB/FireWire drive to store and transfer media. The optical drive is used on a main machine for ripping CDs and DVDs, and then I burn a hard copy of the media for backup use. That's it, nothing else. 90% of the time I don't use an optical drive. So why should I have that space taken up? It just doesn't make sense.
Software
Okay, for those of you who are married to your platform and loyal to the end, you can write this off as my Apple Fanboy rant. But, the reality of the failure in UMPCs in general in my mind is because of the software platform (i.e., Windows). Microsoft has a platform that has been riddled with bugs, security holes, and instability. Ultimately I don't blame the code so much as the core platform: It's just not UNIX. But, because of the whole package in Windows, you have an unreliable device.
Now, let's say you replace the non-UNIX platform with a UNIX platform: Which should it be? Linux is still constantly in development, playing catchup with hardware developers. Why? Not because there is a problem with the platform, but rather because Linux developers are making Linux all things to all platforms. It works, but delays the deployment on newer hardware.
Now, let's look at the Macintosh platform. Apple is able to build their machines so well because they only have set hardware specifications. Why? Because anything more would overwhelm the Mach Kernel, and place the development into the same muddy that GNU's HURD has been trying to navigate. Instead, Apple streamlines the code by streamlining their hardware offerings. That means a streamlined user experience with little to no problems with functionality.
Anyway, that is my little rant. I hope someone from Cupertino is listening, because I really think that an Apple UMPC would be a wonderful thing. Add to that the possibility to install software, and you have an even better platform. Don't overload it with too many peripherals, and you have a sleek, functional device that will get the gob done. You want a gaming platform? Get a gaming platform.
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
VMWare and Gaming: A Review
This last week I have been really looking into VMWare as an engine, and looking at potential options for WIndows gaming within the Mac. VMWare has a wonderful (if experimental) option to encode hardware 3D into the video card, if only for XP at the moment. So, I thought I would give it a go.
The Test
One game that I have been aching to try again is Ultima IX: Ascension. Not particularly because it was the best Ultima game out there (I still contend that Ultima IV was the best), but because the engine was so radical for it's time. Of course, that also means it needed some very advanced system requirements for it's time as well. How well could it run within a virtual machine? That's what I wanted to know.
First Attempt: QEMU
I first attempted the install with QEMU, and it failed. Why? Because QEMU isn't able to simulate a hardware 3D emulator (nor should it, for what it's designed to do). So this means the only method outside of Virtual PC for my PowerPC wasn't going to work. It needed something more advanced.
Second Attempt: VMWare Fusion
I next attempted VMWare fusion, and the install went clean and easy. It was quick, detected the processor without any trouble, and in XP it managed to see the Hardware 3D Graphics option without a problem (not so when trying to install it in Windows 98SE). So I tried to run it.
Performance
The display was just as I remembered, and the video clips played without a hitch. It looked like I found a viable option for my Ultima IX itch... until I actually tried to play. The mouse was not controllable, making moving about in the world very difficult. This, of course, goes to a whole different rant about requiring mouse-driven movement, but that can be answered at another time.
The Verdict
Until I figure out why the mouse isn't working, I would have to say that this almost gets there, and then crushes you right when you think you have the option sown up. It's more disappointing than having the game not install at all, because it looks like you might be able to do it before you fail miserably.
So, what am I going to do? Well, the next step is to find out why the mouse was not working properly. I may also try creating a Bootcamp partition again, booting into Windows directly, and see if it works. Ultimately, it's not the solution that I need, because it just reinforces the need for a decent Ultima game ported to the Mac environment. Perhaps it's time I learned how to do 3D game rendering, and perhaps start working on one myself.
The Test
One game that I have been aching to try again is Ultima IX: Ascension. Not particularly because it was the best Ultima game out there (I still contend that Ultima IV was the best), but because the engine was so radical for it's time. Of course, that also means it needed some very advanced system requirements for it's time as well. How well could it run within a virtual machine? That's what I wanted to know.
First Attempt: QEMU
I first attempted the install with QEMU, and it failed. Why? Because QEMU isn't able to simulate a hardware 3D emulator (nor should it, for what it's designed to do). So this means the only method outside of Virtual PC for my PowerPC wasn't going to work. It needed something more advanced.
Second Attempt: VMWare Fusion
I next attempted VMWare fusion, and the install went clean and easy. It was quick, detected the processor without any trouble, and in XP it managed to see the Hardware 3D Graphics option without a problem (not so when trying to install it in Windows 98SE). So I tried to run it.
Performance
The display was just as I remembered, and the video clips played without a hitch. It looked like I found a viable option for my Ultima IX itch... until I actually tried to play. The mouse was not controllable, making moving about in the world very difficult. This, of course, goes to a whole different rant about requiring mouse-driven movement, but that can be answered at another time.
The Verdict
Until I figure out why the mouse isn't working, I would have to say that this almost gets there, and then crushes you right when you think you have the option sown up. It's more disappointing than having the game not install at all, because it looks like you might be able to do it before you fail miserably.
So, what am I going to do? Well, the next step is to find out why the mouse was not working properly. I may also try creating a Bootcamp partition again, booting into Windows directly, and see if it works. Ultimately, it's not the solution that I need, because it just reinforces the need for a decent Ultima game ported to the Mac environment. Perhaps it's time I learned how to do 3D game rendering, and perhaps start working on one myself.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
VMWare Fusion vs. Parallels vs. QEMU
This week, in between classes, I have been experimenting with virtual machines. Why, you may ask? Because I have been going through old-school gaming withdrawals, and because I need to teach Office 2007 classes. Both require a Windows environment of some sort, and so my quest began.
I started with DOSBox, which I still think is the best DOS emulator I have been able to find for the Mac. It's open source (huge plus!), and works well with most of my DOS games without any configuration. Primarily I used it for Martian Dreams, which I managed to finish in a relatively painless manner. And, interestingly enough, it will run Windows 3.11 rather well (sans networking). For gaming, there isn't anything better. It also runs Word 6.0 without a hitch, in the DOS environment. Not that I would use it for writing anything serious, you understand. Rather I use it for background refreshers.
But, like with all great things that are developed in Open Source, DOSBox is limited. Technically it's possible to install Windows 95, but I want something a bit more stable. Unfortunately, on my personal machine, I'm running a PowerPC. That limits my choices considerably for what is out there.
Of course my work machine is a Mac Pro, and rather well put together. I installed Parallels on it at first, just to play around with it. It worked just the way Windows XP is expected to work: Slow and clunky. But it worked well, and I could get my networks setup, my access taken care of, and work with Office 2007. So I was happy, and this was all before VMWare came out with Fusion.
Now, when VMWare announced Fusion, I was immediately defensive of Parallels. Sure, Parallels initially kernel-panicked my machine, but that was all in the past! I got it working, and it did the job for me. I didn't think I would ever work with VMWare.
Then Leopard came out, and the game changed. I had Parallels 2.x, and it didn't work in Leopard. I had to purchase 3.x. You can probably imagine my excitement over that. So, I went with Bootcamp for a while (tri-booting my Mac Pro), and hobbled along.
Recently (as in this week), my IT department told me they purchased VMWare for me a month ago, and just never told me (or anyone else they had purchased it for) that it was available. I snatched it from their hands, got the CD Key, and then downloaded the latest version. Within a half an hour, I not only had VMWare installed, but also XP! So here is my experience with VMWare Fusion vs. Parallels:
All in all, it was a good experience, and both get the job done. It just seems that VMWare Fusion manages to make it more fluid. And as the price tag for both is the same, I'm convinced that VMWare is the better choice for me.
But I also mentioned that I would talk about QEMU, or Q for the Mac. This is an open source emulator that not only allows you to install Windows, but you can emulate other processor types as well. Need a Sparc machine? It's there. Need to run something for an ARM processor? It's waiting for you. The only problem is, it's terribly slow. The huge bonus is, it's the only way (short of purchasing Virtual PC) to have Windows installed on the Mac PowerPC.
The specs that it emulates to is really impressive. In fact, I should be able to run a couple of Windows games on it without any trouble, and as it's all about the old-school games, it should be a problem to run them on my Powerbook.
So, what's the final verdict? VMWare wins for me on the Intel machine, and QEMU is the clear winner for the PowerPC. Parallels is a close second to VMWare, and both beat QEMU on the Intel machine (for now, anyway).
I started with DOSBox, which I still think is the best DOS emulator I have been able to find for the Mac. It's open source (huge plus!), and works well with most of my DOS games without any configuration. Primarily I used it for Martian Dreams, which I managed to finish in a relatively painless manner. And, interestingly enough, it will run Windows 3.11 rather well (sans networking). For gaming, there isn't anything better. It also runs Word 6.0 without a hitch, in the DOS environment. Not that I would use it for writing anything serious, you understand. Rather I use it for background refreshers.
But, like with all great things that are developed in Open Source, DOSBox is limited. Technically it's possible to install Windows 95, but I want something a bit more stable. Unfortunately, on my personal machine, I'm running a PowerPC. That limits my choices considerably for what is out there.
Of course my work machine is a Mac Pro, and rather well put together. I installed Parallels on it at first, just to play around with it. It worked just the way Windows XP is expected to work: Slow and clunky. But it worked well, and I could get my networks setup, my access taken care of, and work with Office 2007. So I was happy, and this was all before VMWare came out with Fusion.
Now, when VMWare announced Fusion, I was immediately defensive of Parallels. Sure, Parallels initially kernel-panicked my machine, but that was all in the past! I got it working, and it did the job for me. I didn't think I would ever work with VMWare.
Then Leopard came out, and the game changed. I had Parallels 2.x, and it didn't work in Leopard. I had to purchase 3.x. You can probably imagine my excitement over that. So, I went with Bootcamp for a while (tri-booting my Mac Pro), and hobbled along.
Recently (as in this week), my IT department told me they purchased VMWare for me a month ago, and just never told me (or anyone else they had purchased it for) that it was available. I snatched it from their hands, got the CD Key, and then downloaded the latest version. Within a half an hour, I not only had VMWare installed, but also XP! So here is my experience with VMWare Fusion vs. Parallels:
VMWare | Parallels |
Installation was quick and painless, though my experience with Parallels told me to download the latest version of the emulator, and not use the included CD. It is rumored that there is an automatic update tool built into the installation. | First installation crashed my system, requiring a reboot. After reading the boards, I learned that everyone else that had an Intel Core 2 Duo processor had the same problem and ranked the program as poor. A download of the latest version of 2.x worked well, and the installation took the expected amount of time |
Configuration was really painless. It automatically detected my Bootcamp partition, but even better it had an automated installation for the Windows OS that was clean and easy. It allowed installation from a Disk Image of the install CD, which made it that much more convenient to install the OS. | Parallels really understood the meaning of Wizards when they came up with their install process, blazing the path for VMWare to follow on the Mac OS. The installation could have been automated, but I preferred to do a basic install. As of 2.x I was unaware of an option to install from a disk image, and I couldn't tell you if that option is in 3.x |
VMWare's performance is where it excels. The boot sequence is faster than I have seen anywhere, and as such it does a remarkable job. Connecting and disconnecting peripherals is a breeze, and subsequent configurations are simple. | Parallels had some performance issues that I didn't notice until I installed VMWare. Perhaps it is because it was 2.x and not 3.x, but it was noticeably slower when booting to Windows. Other than that, the performance was not noticeably any different. The one thing that was a problem for me on Parallels was the USB jump drive. It had trouble detecting it, because Mac detected it first. I would unmount it on the Mac, and then try to mount it in Parallels, and it would still fail. That was annoying. |
All in all, it was a good experience, and both get the job done. It just seems that VMWare Fusion manages to make it more fluid. And as the price tag for both is the same, I'm convinced that VMWare is the better choice for me.
But I also mentioned that I would talk about QEMU, or Q for the Mac. This is an open source emulator that not only allows you to install Windows, but you can emulate other processor types as well. Need a Sparc machine? It's there. Need to run something for an ARM processor? It's waiting for you. The only problem is, it's terribly slow. The huge bonus is, it's the only way (short of purchasing Virtual PC) to have Windows installed on the Mac PowerPC.
The specs that it emulates to is really impressive. In fact, I should be able to run a couple of Windows games on it without any trouble, and as it's all about the old-school games, it should be a problem to run them on my Powerbook.
So, what's the final verdict? VMWare wins for me on the Intel machine, and QEMU is the clear winner for the PowerPC. Parallels is a close second to VMWare, and both beat QEMU on the Intel machine (for now, anyway).
Monday, February 25, 2008
Comfort Food: Oatmeal
Lately I have been really craving various comfort foods. Perhaps it is because of stress at home, perhaps it's because Winter is nearing an end, but for what ever reason, I can't seem to get past the need for a good carbohydrate-rich meal. One of my favorites is Oatmeal. Why? Partly because I wrote an entire tragic (in that the main characters always die pointlessly) children's series based on an Elephant named Fibre (yes, spelling is correct), and a porcupine named Oatmill (again, spelling is intentional). Also, oatmeal is a staple of many Scottish homes. I think I like it more for that reason than anything. ^_^
My friend Joseph, recently posted some recipes for instant oatmeal on his blog, and challenged me personally to come up with a recipe with Blueberries and nuts. Always up for a challenge (though not always successful at same), I thought I would give it a go. So, this weekend I talked my wife into letting my purchase 20 ounces of dried blueberries from Costco, some pecans, and some powdered non-dairy creamer. Of course, I didn't get a chance to try the recipe I had planned over the weekend, but this morning I managed to mix up a batch. Here is the recipe that I posted in the comments to Joseph's blog posting:
Blueberry and Pecan Oatmeal:
Oats (probably about 1/2 cup)
chopped pecans (about 1 tbsp)
powdered non-dairy creamer (abt. 1 1/2 tbsp)
dried blueberries (abt. 1 1/2 tbsp)
Sweetener of choice (mine is honey)
I mixed the dry ingredients together, and then covered with hot water. Let it sit for about 5 minutes, mixing occasionally. It ends up being pretty creamy, and once you add the honey (I have a great little bit of wild honey I picked up), it's all the better.
It was good, it was filling, and it was (after the purchase of the blueberries) relatively inexpensive. Of course, it doesn't beat real Porridge oats with fresh fruit and cream, but it does the job. Also, I recommend using honey instead of sugar (unless you have an allergy to it), because the taste melds well with the pecans and oats. But if you do, be sure to add the honey right before you eat. Honey breaks down quicker than sugar, and as such can suffer from over-cooking.
Maybe the next time I go shopping, I'll get some Maple extract and soak the oats/nuts in it. Maple and pecans are a great combination. ^_^
My friend Joseph, recently posted some recipes for instant oatmeal on his blog, and challenged me personally to come up with a recipe with Blueberries and nuts. Always up for a challenge (though not always successful at same), I thought I would give it a go. So, this weekend I talked my wife into letting my purchase 20 ounces of dried blueberries from Costco, some pecans, and some powdered non-dairy creamer. Of course, I didn't get a chance to try the recipe I had planned over the weekend, but this morning I managed to mix up a batch. Here is the recipe that I posted in the comments to Joseph's blog posting:
Blueberry and Pecan Oatmeal:
Oats (probably about 1/2 cup)
chopped pecans (about 1 tbsp)
powdered non-dairy creamer (abt. 1 1/2 tbsp)
dried blueberries (abt. 1 1/2 tbsp)
Sweetener of choice (mine is honey)
I mixed the dry ingredients together, and then covered with hot water. Let it sit for about 5 minutes, mixing occasionally. It ends up being pretty creamy, and once you add the honey (I have a great little bit of wild honey I picked up), it's all the better.
It was good, it was filling, and it was (after the purchase of the blueberries) relatively inexpensive. Of course, it doesn't beat real Porridge oats with fresh fruit and cream, but it does the job. Also, I recommend using honey instead of sugar (unless you have an allergy to it), because the taste melds well with the pecans and oats. But if you do, be sure to add the honey right before you eat. Honey breaks down quicker than sugar, and as such can suffer from over-cooking.
Maybe the next time I go shopping, I'll get some Maple extract and soak the oats/nuts in it. Maple and pecans are a great combination. ^_^
Friday, February 22, 2008
Deja Vu: DOSBox, Boxer, and Windows 3.11
I have a soft spot in my heart for all things old. It's in my nature, and perhaps explains why my first degree was in History. So, while I like to check out new software, new hardware, and new computing concepts, I get nostalgic for the old days, and running my DOS apps in a nice, slow environment.
One of the drawbacks I had from going to Mac from Windows was the loss of my windows games. It's not a huge loss, as I don't have a lot of time to play them, but I do miss it from time to time. But what I miss even more are the old DOS games that I grew up with. I miss my Ultima series, Space Quest, and particularly Martian Dreams. With UNIX being a big part of the Mac OS, I lost all the old DOS apps that I loved. What to do?
Well, I started browsing around for applications in general, and came across DOSBox. It's a great program that emulates DOS well enough to run most if not all DOS apps out there. I played with it, but it required a lot of steps to mount the drive that took some getting used to. Also, the key bindings were a little foreign for a Mac user, so some things didn't quite make sense to me.
Well, I kept using it, and in fact managed to install quite a few applications. Then, I started to wonder, what would happen if I installed a DOS-based windowing system, like Windows 3.11? I have at least one program (Sit Meier's Colonization) that has a Windows install, and works best that way. Well, I started checking it out, and found out that someone installed it on Ubuntu, and so I figured it should be just as easy to do so on the Mac.
So why not use VMWare, or Parallels? Because I'm on a PowerPC, and don't have the option of using either of those applications. So this actually is an interesting alternative for me, should I want to use a Windows application. Of course, that's if I can get it to work. ^_^
Well, I started by grabbing an old image of Windows 3.11. I had an old 486 that had 3.11 on it, and as such was able to get a legal copy. ^_^ Once the image was gathered, I moved it into the dosdrive folder I created (this is used as the root directory for DOSBox). Once in there, I was able to boot into DOSBox, mount the drive, and then install Windows 3.11 without a hitch.
Once it was installed, I was able to install my windows 3.11 application without any trouble. It works great, and even identifies a basic sound card. What it doesn't do (at least that I can see), is recognize a network device. As such, I'm not able to access the network from Windows 3.11. This would be handy to have, should I ever be forced to use Internet Explorer to access a website.
Now, once I got through all this, I started to get a little annoyed at the need to mount the drive all the time. Someone mentioned that all you have to do is find the dosbox.conf file and edit it to automount the drive, but I haven't been able to find it. Luckily, while reading the forum postings, I found a wonderful project: Boxer. It's just an Applescript wrapped around DOSBox, but it's great for what I want. It let me set an automatic folder as my root DOS directory, and as such saves me a little bit of time.
So, the long and the short of this program is: I like DOSBox! It's a great environment that works for all the old DOS games, and even a DOS version of Word (Word 6.0). The only thing I would want more out of it is a networking component that WIndows can see/install without any trouble, and allow for internet/email usage. Why? Because then the only reasons I would need VMWare or Parallels would be taken care of by DOSBox, and some pretty slick WIndows 3.11/95 applications. ^_^
One of the drawbacks I had from going to Mac from Windows was the loss of my windows games. It's not a huge loss, as I don't have a lot of time to play them, but I do miss it from time to time. But what I miss even more are the old DOS games that I grew up with. I miss my Ultima series, Space Quest, and particularly Martian Dreams. With UNIX being a big part of the Mac OS, I lost all the old DOS apps that I loved. What to do?
Well, I started browsing around for applications in general, and came across DOSBox. It's a great program that emulates DOS well enough to run most if not all DOS apps out there. I played with it, but it required a lot of steps to mount the drive that took some getting used to. Also, the key bindings were a little foreign for a Mac user, so some things didn't quite make sense to me.
Well, I kept using it, and in fact managed to install quite a few applications. Then, I started to wonder, what would happen if I installed a DOS-based windowing system, like Windows 3.11? I have at least one program (Sit Meier's Colonization) that has a Windows install, and works best that way. Well, I started checking it out, and found out that someone installed it on Ubuntu, and so I figured it should be just as easy to do so on the Mac.
So why not use VMWare, or Parallels? Because I'm on a PowerPC, and don't have the option of using either of those applications. So this actually is an interesting alternative for me, should I want to use a Windows application. Of course, that's if I can get it to work. ^_^
Well, I started by grabbing an old image of Windows 3.11. I had an old 486 that had 3.11 on it, and as such was able to get a legal copy. ^_^ Once the image was gathered, I moved it into the dosdrive folder I created (this is used as the root directory for DOSBox). Once in there, I was able to boot into DOSBox, mount the drive, and then install Windows 3.11 without a hitch.
Once it was installed, I was able to install my windows 3.11 application without any trouble. It works great, and even identifies a basic sound card. What it doesn't do (at least that I can see), is recognize a network device. As such, I'm not able to access the network from Windows 3.11. This would be handy to have, should I ever be forced to use Internet Explorer to access a website.
Now, once I got through all this, I started to get a little annoyed at the need to mount the drive all the time. Someone mentioned that all you have to do is find the dosbox.conf file and edit it to automount the drive, but I haven't been able to find it. Luckily, while reading the forum postings, I found a wonderful project: Boxer. It's just an Applescript wrapped around DOSBox, but it's great for what I want. It let me set an automatic folder as my root DOS directory, and as such saves me a little bit of time.
So, the long and the short of this program is: I like DOSBox! It's a great environment that works for all the old DOS games, and even a DOS version of Word (Word 6.0). The only thing I would want more out of it is a networking component that WIndows can see/install without any trouble, and allow for internet/email usage. Why? Because then the only reasons I would need VMWare or Parallels would be taken care of by DOSBox, and some pretty slick WIndows 3.11/95 applications. ^_^
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Open Letter to the BBC: Bring Programming to US iTunes
On Tuesday, the BBC announced that it would start providing their TV content on iTunes: In the UK. This is a landmark decision, because quite frankly the BBC has some great shows, some of which don't translate well to the general US market. Unfortunately, for those few of us that follow the cult classics (Jonathan Creek, Rosemary and Thyme, etc.), we are left out in the cold. Sure, we can wait for years until the episodes come to DVD, but wouldn't it be smarter to provide downloads that are compatible with various formats (or at least iTunes for me)?
So, in my quest to get quality television (and no, I don't think American Idol is quality television), I have written an open letter to both the BBC and BBC America. The letter is limited by characters (due to the limitations for their email contact us form):
Recently, BBC Worldwide made (in my opinion) a landmark decision to provide BBC TV shows on iTunes in the UK for download. This is monumental in that quality BBC programming can be delivered directly to those that are more likely to purchase, and the delivery and distribution model is quite simple.
Has the BBC, or BBC America, considered doing the same here in the US? Now that the Apple TV has been designed more appropriately, it would most likely be in the BBC's best interest to consider providing content on iTunes. Popular cult classics like Rosemary and Thyme, or Jonathan Creek can reach a more targeted audience, shipping time will be almost immediate, and your loyal fans (guilty as charged!) will be forever in your debt.
I hope that the BBC will make the decision to provide their material on iTunes, as BBC Worldwide made in the UK. It would be a benefit to those of us who wish to be truly entertained with real, quality television that has not been "americanized".
I hope that the BBC understands that iTunes and similar distribution methods are ideal for targeting those that love the cult classics, lesser known shows, and those shows that have a limited target audience.
So, in my quest to get quality television (and no, I don't think American Idol is quality television), I have written an open letter to both the BBC and BBC America. The letter is limited by characters (due to the limitations for their email contact us form):
Recently, BBC Worldwide made (in my opinion) a landmark decision to provide BBC TV shows on iTunes in the UK for download. This is monumental in that quality BBC programming can be delivered directly to those that are more likely to purchase, and the delivery and distribution model is quite simple.
Has the BBC, or BBC America, considered doing the same here in the US? Now that the Apple TV has been designed more appropriately, it would most likely be in the BBC's best interest to consider providing content on iTunes. Popular cult classics like Rosemary and Thyme, or Jonathan Creek can reach a more targeted audience, shipping time will be almost immediate, and your loyal fans (guilty as charged!) will be forever in your debt.
I hope that the BBC will make the decision to provide their material on iTunes, as BBC Worldwide made in the UK. It would be a benefit to those of us who wish to be truly entertained with real, quality television that has not been "americanized".
I hope that the BBC understands that iTunes and similar distribution methods are ideal for targeting those that love the cult classics, lesser known shows, and those shows that have a limited target audience.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Apple TV Take 2: A Review
The Apple TV update has been released within the last week, and I have finally had plenty of time to play with it, so here is my review.
Declaration of Bias
First off, I want to let you know my bias with regard to all things Apple. Yes, I love Apple products, but not because they are from Apple. It's because I like the functionality that they give, the simplicity in their setup, and the power of UNIX at the core. So, now that you know my bias, on with the review!
The Interface
I've heard a lot of complaints about the interface, some from a "design" aspect, some in regard to the blatant iTunes marketing. But to tell you the truth, it's just plain easy to use. It's not fluid, but because of the new features they offer in the upgrade it doesn't seem possible to make it fluid.
The only real difference from the UI in Take 2 from the original is the box that shows up. I actually prefer the two column box because menu options come up while your music plays, and doesn't stop it like before. So in that aspect, it's a better interface.
Is there anything that I don't like about the interface? Just entering text. It's awkward using the Apple remote to enter text, and as such takes too long to do any real searching. Would I want a bigger and more cumbersome remote with a built in keyboard? Absolutely not! It would then be too difficult to use, and too confusing for new users. And I know what you are thinking: if they don't want to learn how to do it, why should you cater to them? Because those people have money to buy the product. Simplicity is what makes the Apple TV a joy to use.
Movies
One thing that I don't think people understand about the potential of iTunes is the potential to cater to the cult classics that you can't get anywhere else. Want to watch "Goldfoot and the Bikini Machine"? It's there. It's all about the rare, and getting that rare to those that would buy it.
With that in mind, let's look at rental. It's a great idea, and I really like it. There are a lot of movies that we purchase and only watch once or twice... That's $30 down the drain, when instead we can rent it from iTunes and watch it to our hearts content (once or twice within a 24 hour period), and only pay $2.99 to $3.99. Do I care about HD? Not really, because I only have an Standard Definition TV. I've heard reviews and seen screen shots that compare the quality of the Apple TV to HD Cable shows, and it's been favorable with the Apple TV. But again, it's dependent on services and the TV you are using.
Browsing shared movies is similar to the original Apple TV, if only vaguely. It's actually easier, because you can browse to them from the Movies menu instead of having to go to Sources to find the source. In fact the navigation let's you get to other sources easier than before.
Renting is simple, though there isn't a lot out there to rent. But what is there is a fairly diverse genre spread that would make most people interested at least. If you download a movie, it will sync automatically with your main source machine. If you don't have a main source machine, it stays on your Apple TV. ^_^ That I really like. Once you are done renting (i.e., 1 month of not watching, or within 24 hours of when you started to watch the movie), it automatically deletes itself from your Apple TV/iTunes.
TV Shows
This was the only annoyance I had with the update. By default, it displays your TV shows by show, time stamp, and then alphabetically. There looked to be a way to organize the display, but no simple way to be seen to organize it. I was doomed to deal with my TV shows out of order, until I tried to just hit the right skip button on the remote. It then organized the TV shows by show, which was what I had before the upgrade.
One welcome addition to this view was the division by season, and then give the numbers of each episode. It makes it easier to see if you have all the episodes, and make sure they are in order. Needless to say, the one major complaint I had against the Take 2 upgrade was resolved.
Music
I don't listen to a lot of music, but my wife does. One thing that is a great improvement is the Air Tunes option, where someone can play their music from their mac on the Apple TV. I like it, because I can leave the TV off to get to the music, and it gives more space on the Apple TV for movies and TV shows (soon to no longer be an issue, if I can talk my wife into the hard drive upgrade for the Apple TV).
Other than that, it's pretty much like movies or TV shows, with sharing very easy to navigate, and a huge emphasis on iTunes.
Podcasts
I love podcasts. I listen to several, mostly from NPR. The search isn't the best (see complaint about entering text), but sharing is great and easy to navigate. One great thing is the video podcasts for movie trailers. Because our wireless broadband network is, well, rather unreliable at times (anytime UTOPIA becomes ready, I'm dumping it), downloading to the Apple TV to watch a preview can take quite a bit of time. So, I would rather download the podcasts for the movies at work, and then bring them home to watch.
Photos
Photos are not often used on our machine, other than as a screensaver, but the Apple TV does allow for connecting to Flickr and the .Mac repository that my wife would have had access to (but never used, thank goodness for trial accounts!). They are easy to set up, the settings are in the same menu (no more hunting), and you can also view shared photos from machines. WIll it be a good move? Well, only if I find a use for browsing through Flickr files on a regular basis. Until then, it's really a non-issue for me.
YouTube
I just recently got my wife interested in YouTube, and created an account for us to use on YouTube. Now I connect at work, find interesting movies, and I can bring them home and have my wife watch them on the main TV. The only drawback is the broadband network we are on, and the problems we seem to have with bandwidth. Ah, well, perhaps one day it will be a good tool to use. In any case, other than search, the Apple TV is a really good tool to watch YouTube on a big screen.
Settings
The settings were pretty much the same, though they had an added option to add your iTunes account to the Apple TV directly. It's time consuming, but keeps it on file and not in RAM. Good thing, because occasionally my son likes to play with the power strip into witch it is plugged. Other than that, it's pretty much the same.
Final Thoughts
The main drawback to the Apple TV is the hard drive size. The good news is that it's fairly easy to upgrade the hard drive (out of warranty, of course), and will cost just a little more to upgrade an Apple TV 40 GB to 250 GB than buying an Apple TV 160 GB.
Also, there are a number of hacks that can be loaded to the Apple TV, one of which is the Safari HD plugin, allowing someone to use Safari on the Apple TV without having to install a full version of OS X. They have a version for the new Take 2 update, so once I can talk my wife into letting me upgrade the hard drive, I'm going to look into it. You can also enable SSH, which makes upgrading the Apple TV that much easier.
So, is the Apple TV worth it? With the hacks, most definitely. Without the hacks, it is very usable, simple in it's navigation, and therefore a definite keeper. Can you build and configure a more expandable device? Sure, if you want to go through all the work, time, effort, etc. Frankly, I like the fact that the Apple TV is just so simple to use. I can rip my DVD's with Handbrake, add them to iTunes, and as such they are viewable on the Apple TV.
And finally, of course, it saves my DVD's from my son's fingers, and the fingers of his cousins.
Declaration of Bias
First off, I want to let you know my bias with regard to all things Apple. Yes, I love Apple products, but not because they are from Apple. It's because I like the functionality that they give, the simplicity in their setup, and the power of UNIX at the core. So, now that you know my bias, on with the review!
The Interface
I've heard a lot of complaints about the interface, some from a "design" aspect, some in regard to the blatant iTunes marketing. But to tell you the truth, it's just plain easy to use. It's not fluid, but because of the new features they offer in the upgrade it doesn't seem possible to make it fluid.
The only real difference from the UI in Take 2 from the original is the box that shows up. I actually prefer the two column box because menu options come up while your music plays, and doesn't stop it like before. So in that aspect, it's a better interface.
Is there anything that I don't like about the interface? Just entering text. It's awkward using the Apple remote to enter text, and as such takes too long to do any real searching. Would I want a bigger and more cumbersome remote with a built in keyboard? Absolutely not! It would then be too difficult to use, and too confusing for new users. And I know what you are thinking: if they don't want to learn how to do it, why should you cater to them? Because those people have money to buy the product. Simplicity is what makes the Apple TV a joy to use.
Movies
One thing that I don't think people understand about the potential of iTunes is the potential to cater to the cult classics that you can't get anywhere else. Want to watch "Goldfoot and the Bikini Machine"? It's there. It's all about the rare, and getting that rare to those that would buy it.
With that in mind, let's look at rental. It's a great idea, and I really like it. There are a lot of movies that we purchase and only watch once or twice... That's $30 down the drain, when instead we can rent it from iTunes and watch it to our hearts content (once or twice within a 24 hour period), and only pay $2.99 to $3.99. Do I care about HD? Not really, because I only have an Standard Definition TV. I've heard reviews and seen screen shots that compare the quality of the Apple TV to HD Cable shows, and it's been favorable with the Apple TV. But again, it's dependent on services and the TV you are using.
Browsing shared movies is similar to the original Apple TV, if only vaguely. It's actually easier, because you can browse to them from the Movies menu instead of having to go to Sources to find the source. In fact the navigation let's you get to other sources easier than before.
Renting is simple, though there isn't a lot out there to rent. But what is there is a fairly diverse genre spread that would make most people interested at least. If you download a movie, it will sync automatically with your main source machine. If you don't have a main source machine, it stays on your Apple TV. ^_^ That I really like. Once you are done renting (i.e., 1 month of not watching, or within 24 hours of when you started to watch the movie), it automatically deletes itself from your Apple TV/iTunes.
TV Shows
This was the only annoyance I had with the update. By default, it displays your TV shows by show, time stamp, and then alphabetically. There looked to be a way to organize the display, but no simple way to be seen to organize it. I was doomed to deal with my TV shows out of order, until I tried to just hit the right skip button on the remote. It then organized the TV shows by show, which was what I had before the upgrade.
One welcome addition to this view was the division by season, and then give the numbers of each episode. It makes it easier to see if you have all the episodes, and make sure they are in order. Needless to say, the one major complaint I had against the Take 2 upgrade was resolved.
Music
I don't listen to a lot of music, but my wife does. One thing that is a great improvement is the Air Tunes option, where someone can play their music from their mac on the Apple TV. I like it, because I can leave the TV off to get to the music, and it gives more space on the Apple TV for movies and TV shows (soon to no longer be an issue, if I can talk my wife into the hard drive upgrade for the Apple TV).
Other than that, it's pretty much like movies or TV shows, with sharing very easy to navigate, and a huge emphasis on iTunes.
Podcasts
I love podcasts. I listen to several, mostly from NPR. The search isn't the best (see complaint about entering text), but sharing is great and easy to navigate. One great thing is the video podcasts for movie trailers. Because our wireless broadband network is, well, rather unreliable at times (anytime UTOPIA becomes ready, I'm dumping it), downloading to the Apple TV to watch a preview can take quite a bit of time. So, I would rather download the podcasts for the movies at work, and then bring them home to watch.
Photos
Photos are not often used on our machine, other than as a screensaver, but the Apple TV does allow for connecting to Flickr and the .Mac repository that my wife would have had access to (but never used, thank goodness for trial accounts!). They are easy to set up, the settings are in the same menu (no more hunting), and you can also view shared photos from machines. WIll it be a good move? Well, only if I find a use for browsing through Flickr files on a regular basis. Until then, it's really a non-issue for me.
YouTube
I just recently got my wife interested in YouTube, and created an account for us to use on YouTube. Now I connect at work, find interesting movies, and I can bring them home and have my wife watch them on the main TV. The only drawback is the broadband network we are on, and the problems we seem to have with bandwidth. Ah, well, perhaps one day it will be a good tool to use. In any case, other than search, the Apple TV is a really good tool to watch YouTube on a big screen.
Settings
The settings were pretty much the same, though they had an added option to add your iTunes account to the Apple TV directly. It's time consuming, but keeps it on file and not in RAM. Good thing, because occasionally my son likes to play with the power strip into witch it is plugged. Other than that, it's pretty much the same.
Final Thoughts
The main drawback to the Apple TV is the hard drive size. The good news is that it's fairly easy to upgrade the hard drive (out of warranty, of course), and will cost just a little more to upgrade an Apple TV 40 GB to 250 GB than buying an Apple TV 160 GB.
Also, there are a number of hacks that can be loaded to the Apple TV, one of which is the Safari HD plugin, allowing someone to use Safari on the Apple TV without having to install a full version of OS X. They have a version for the new Take 2 update, so once I can talk my wife into letting me upgrade the hard drive, I'm going to look into it. You can also enable SSH, which makes upgrading the Apple TV that much easier.
So, is the Apple TV worth it? With the hacks, most definitely. Without the hacks, it is very usable, simple in it's navigation, and therefore a definite keeper. Can you build and configure a more expandable device? Sure, if you want to go through all the work, time, effort, etc. Frankly, I like the fact that the Apple TV is just so simple to use. I can rip my DVD's with Handbrake, add them to iTunes, and as such they are viewable on the Apple TV.
And finally, of course, it saves my DVD's from my son's fingers, and the fingers of his cousins.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Wanted: Flexible Linux Instructor
Summer semester is a very difficult time for a lot of CS students. Many of the programs that are run through the other semesters are put on hold as their professors go on nice long sabbaticals, and as such they can't progress through their degrees as quickly as they might want. As such, they have lots of good opportunities to take additional electives, such as Linux classes.
Unfortunately, the instructor we had in line for the Linux 103 and 104 (Guru Labs 275 and 314 classes) also decided to take the summer off for a nice long vacation. This means that while we have an instructor for the first half of the semester (120 and 250 courses), there isn't anyone to teach the second half of the semester.
So, I thought I would make a quick post to see if there is an instructor willing to contract with the University of Utah to teach these classes. They would be teaching from June 19th to July 30th from 8:30 AM to 12:30 PM, on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Ideally they would need to have knowledge of the material, and know how to teach.
Of there os anyone that interested, please contact Inita Lyon at 801-581-6061 for more information and to schedule an interview.
Unfortunately, the instructor we had in line for the Linux 103 and 104 (Guru Labs 275 and 314 classes) also decided to take the summer off for a nice long vacation. This means that while we have an instructor for the first half of the semester (120 and 250 courses), there isn't anyone to teach the second half of the semester.
So, I thought I would make a quick post to see if there is an instructor willing to contract with the University of Utah to teach these classes. They would be teaching from June 19th to July 30th from 8:30 AM to 12:30 PM, on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Ideally they would need to have knowledge of the material, and know how to teach.
Of there os anyone that interested, please contact Inita Lyon at 801-581-6061 for more information and to schedule an interview.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Internet Safety Blog
Yesterday I had the opportunity to present an internet safety course to the PTA of a local school system. There were perhaps 15 parents that were present, but all had some great things to ask and add to the presentation. All in all it was a good experience.
Something that I couldn't give them right away that I wanted to was a link to my Internet Safety blog, which I set up for the course. So, here is the link: http://edtec10.blogspot.com/
I'm going to open the blog to pretty much anyone that would like to add questions or comments on internet safety. The idea is to go beyond the computer and come up with real solutions that will protect children from questionable material. And what constitutes questionable material? Whatever the parents feel is questionable. After all, it's their family, and therefore their responsibility, and ultimately their call. That's one thing about teaching this course: it's not up to anyone to dictate what is and is not appropriate for families, but simply to give them the tools and techniques to accomplish what they want to do.
Something that I couldn't give them right away that I wanted to was a link to my Internet Safety blog, which I set up for the course. So, here is the link: http://edtec10.blogspot.com/
I'm going to open the blog to pretty much anyone that would like to add questions or comments on internet safety. The idea is to go beyond the computer and come up with real solutions that will protect children from questionable material. And what constitutes questionable material? Whatever the parents feel is questionable. After all, it's their family, and therefore their responsibility, and ultimately their call. That's one thing about teaching this course: it's not up to anyone to dictate what is and is not appropriate for families, but simply to give them the tools and techniques to accomplish what they want to do.
Friday, February 08, 2008
Cock-a-Leeky with a Twist
For those few that have been regular followers of my blog, you know that I love my ancestry, and the peasant foods that come with it. As such, I like to make the foods when I know that my wife cannot object. Such was the case yesterday when I was home with my sick son.
Cock-a-leeky is a great soup for sickness, because it's almost entirely a broth with very little other solids in it. Therefore, for someone with a rather queasy stomach, it goes down light and nourishes. It's also very sweet, brought on by the rehydrating prunes added at the end. All in all, it's my favorite chicken soup.
Now, normally you would add ox tail soup bones to the pan, along with a whole chicken, let it roast, and then start the soup. The reason being is that you want a full, hearty soup that tastes great and has as much nourishment in it as possible. Of course, I didn't have the time or inclination to make a full batch (and the store didn't have soup bones), so I had to compromise. I purchased three small lamb chops, and use them instead (which is my twist). ^_^
Here are the ingredients for my soup:
3 small lamb chops
6 pieces of chicken breast (equaling perhaps two full chicken breasts)
2 cans chicken broth
6 leeks - chopped
parsley flakes to taste
4 prunes cut in half
I started by pulling out a non-coated pan, because the initial part of this soup requires some brazing. I then coated the bottom of the pan with olive oil, and set in my chops. After browning each side, I added the chicken broth and the chicken. Normally at this point I would add whole chicken pieces with bones and water, but this was a short-cut. Then I added half the leeks.
I let this cook for about an hour, simmering and reducing down for a nice strong flavor. Then, I removed the lamb (and ate it on the side). I then removed the chicken, and cut it into smaller pieces, then placed it back in. I seasoned with the parsley, added the rest of the leeks. I added more water, then added the prunes.
Not once did I need to add salt (plenty in the broth). Once it simmered down again (after about a half an hour), it was done. The flavor was perfect, with a slight bold, strong flavor from the lamb. This is perhaps the best version of cock-a-leeky I have ever made, even if I do say so myself. ^_^
Cock-a-leeky is a great soup for sickness, because it's almost entirely a broth with very little other solids in it. Therefore, for someone with a rather queasy stomach, it goes down light and nourishes. It's also very sweet, brought on by the rehydrating prunes added at the end. All in all, it's my favorite chicken soup.
Now, normally you would add ox tail soup bones to the pan, along with a whole chicken, let it roast, and then start the soup. The reason being is that you want a full, hearty soup that tastes great and has as much nourishment in it as possible. Of course, I didn't have the time or inclination to make a full batch (and the store didn't have soup bones), so I had to compromise. I purchased three small lamb chops, and use them instead (which is my twist). ^_^
Here are the ingredients for my soup:
3 small lamb chops
6 pieces of chicken breast (equaling perhaps two full chicken breasts)
2 cans chicken broth
6 leeks - chopped
parsley flakes to taste
4 prunes cut in half
I started by pulling out a non-coated pan, because the initial part of this soup requires some brazing. I then coated the bottom of the pan with olive oil, and set in my chops. After browning each side, I added the chicken broth and the chicken. Normally at this point I would add whole chicken pieces with bones and water, but this was a short-cut. Then I added half the leeks.
I let this cook for about an hour, simmering and reducing down for a nice strong flavor. Then, I removed the lamb (and ate it on the side). I then removed the chicken, and cut it into smaller pieces, then placed it back in. I seasoned with the parsley, added the rest of the leeks. I added more water, then added the prunes.
Not once did I need to add salt (plenty in the broth). Once it simmered down again (after about a half an hour), it was done. The flavor was perfect, with a slight bold, strong flavor from the lamb. This is perhaps the best version of cock-a-leeky I have ever made, even if I do say so myself. ^_^
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
The Media: The Real Winners of Super Tuesday
Yesterday morning I was listing to NPR, and they had a little clip on the impact on such a volatile race has had on the major news outlets. More people tuned into the political debates than watch football. It's unprecedented, it's unbelievable, it's.... exactly what the major networks have needed since the Writer's Guild strikes started this winter.
This is reality TV that people just can't buy, make-up, or create no matter how hard they try. The big worry was that with the completion of Super Tuesday a final delegate would be selected on either side, and the news would go back to partisan bickering over "Us vs. Them". How were they going to keep the momentum going until November?
Luckily for the media and the networks, that didn't happen. Even if a Republican nominee comes out after the final count in California, the Democrats are still up for grabs. And quite frankly, the media has been more interested in that race than any other (you can call it bias, you can call it "firsts", either way, it's been their big focus).
What does this mean for us? Well, for those of us that have already had our primary, we will be clear of the TV ads until November (unless you are in Utah, where national Democrats don't seem to bother). For you poor souls in states that haven't had their caucuses or primaries yet, you are now the new battleground states. And the media and networks will be there with you, reporting every poll, every projection, every little sneeze you may have that indicates a position on the primary.
It's good to know that the political process has so many people interested, because we need people engaged in the debate, focused on the issues, and making educated decisions. But please, if you are going to get involved, become familiar with your positions and take the time to get to know all the candidates. Don't leave your research to the media, who may have their own biases. Your biases are just as important. ^_^
This is reality TV that people just can't buy, make-up, or create no matter how hard they try. The big worry was that with the completion of Super Tuesday a final delegate would be selected on either side, and the news would go back to partisan bickering over "Us vs. Them". How were they going to keep the momentum going until November?
Luckily for the media and the networks, that didn't happen. Even if a Republican nominee comes out after the final count in California, the Democrats are still up for grabs. And quite frankly, the media has been more interested in that race than any other (you can call it bias, you can call it "firsts", either way, it's been their big focus).
What does this mean for us? Well, for those of us that have already had our primary, we will be clear of the TV ads until November (unless you are in Utah, where national Democrats don't seem to bother). For you poor souls in states that haven't had their caucuses or primaries yet, you are now the new battleground states. And the media and networks will be there with you, reporting every poll, every projection, every little sneeze you may have that indicates a position on the primary.
It's good to know that the political process has so many people interested, because we need people engaged in the debate, focused on the issues, and making educated decisions. But please, if you are going to get involved, become familiar with your positions and take the time to get to know all the candidates. Don't leave your research to the media, who may have their own biases. Your biases are just as important. ^_^
Saturday, February 02, 2008
Turtle Airships: Great Ideas, All Possible
I received a comment to my last entry on Airships (wow! Someone read my blog! ^_^), pointing out an airship currently in development: The Turtle airship.
The designer has some excellent ideas, particularly making a solid hulled craft (and hence increasing it's strength), changing the design for better aerodynamics (increasing lift without ballast), and making the whole thing solar powered. Is it possible? Certainly!
The first problem would be solar panels on the hull. Big problem, because the current weight of solar panels is such that the airship would quickly become top-heavy. Is there a way around this? Yes. Ascent Solar has been developing a photovoltaics that are thin and as such quite useful in making a solid hulled airship. Because it can envelope the entire hull (at least the top half), no matter where you are the sunlight can be used to generate power.
Next, the lift. Helium is the number one lifting gas, since the Hindenburg disaster and the death off Hydrogen airships. But is hydrogen really dead? I don't think so. Perhaps, if an airship were to have a series of chambers, with helium closest to the cabin, with a central hydrogen bag, you would be back in business. Remember, hydrogen will not burst into flames without being in the presence of oxygen and a catalyst. Surround it with Helium, and Hydrogen remains quite inert.
Suppose, for instance, your buoyancy is still heavier than air with the outer chambers filled with helium. This allows for the loading and unloading of the ship without worrying about ballast. Then, when you are ready to take off, you fill the center chamber with compressed hydrogen. Your lift is increased (because uncompressed hydrogen is lighter than compressed hydrogen), and as such you are now lighter than air. This dynamic buoyancy would make it possible to fly everywhere, and not require water as your ballast (though I do think it's a great idea! ^_^).
Finally, the solid hull. This is the one thing that I have little experience in, as I'm not an engineer (wasted my time with History, I'm afraid). But I had guessed that carbon fiber and graphite would make a strong, rigid hull that would withstand the elements quite well. Add on the Ascent Solar panels, and you have an airship that would have enough strength to withstand some pretty decent storms, I would imagine. Anyone correct me if I'm wrong.
So, needless to say, I'm quite impressed with the ideas behind the Turtle airship. I'm looking forward to the first flight, to see whether or not the golden age of airships can truly come to fruition.
The designer has some excellent ideas, particularly making a solid hulled craft (and hence increasing it's strength), changing the design for better aerodynamics (increasing lift without ballast), and making the whole thing solar powered. Is it possible? Certainly!
The first problem would be solar panels on the hull. Big problem, because the current weight of solar panels is such that the airship would quickly become top-heavy. Is there a way around this? Yes. Ascent Solar has been developing a photovoltaics that are thin and as such quite useful in making a solid hulled airship. Because it can envelope the entire hull (at least the top half), no matter where you are the sunlight can be used to generate power.
Next, the lift. Helium is the number one lifting gas, since the Hindenburg disaster and the death off Hydrogen airships. But is hydrogen really dead? I don't think so. Perhaps, if an airship were to have a series of chambers, with helium closest to the cabin, with a central hydrogen bag, you would be back in business. Remember, hydrogen will not burst into flames without being in the presence of oxygen and a catalyst. Surround it with Helium, and Hydrogen remains quite inert.
Suppose, for instance, your buoyancy is still heavier than air with the outer chambers filled with helium. This allows for the loading and unloading of the ship without worrying about ballast. Then, when you are ready to take off, you fill the center chamber with compressed hydrogen. Your lift is increased (because uncompressed hydrogen is lighter than compressed hydrogen), and as such you are now lighter than air. This dynamic buoyancy would make it possible to fly everywhere, and not require water as your ballast (though I do think it's a great idea! ^_^).
Finally, the solid hull. This is the one thing that I have little experience in, as I'm not an engineer (wasted my time with History, I'm afraid). But I had guessed that carbon fiber and graphite would make a strong, rigid hull that would withstand the elements quite well. Add on the Ascent Solar panels, and you have an airship that would have enough strength to withstand some pretty decent storms, I would imagine. Anyone correct me if I'm wrong.
So, needless to say, I'm quite impressed with the ideas behind the Turtle airship. I'm looking forward to the first flight, to see whether or not the golden age of airships can truly come to fruition.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)