The Mac Sucks!

Today I read CNET’s coverage of the Opera 10 “Unite” service. To save you going to the link, the Opera developers decided that it would be a lot better for you to share your content with the world via your web browser rather than a third-party service like YouTube or Flickr. It does this by running a web server on your PC which other users access across the Internet. When I read this, I was immediately struck by several thoughts and questions:

• Why? Maybe if this was 1995, I could see the point of Opera Unite. Today, with well-known and (arguably) good services like YouTube, Flickr, and others out there, what’s the point of serving your media yourself? Why take the risk of opening your personal computer to the Internet, regardless of how careful and secure you are? If people really wanted to share their own content directly from their own PCs, wouldn’t a “real” web server like Apache make more sense? Maybe within a corporate intranet there might be some value to this, but even there, most companies have central servers for doing this sort of thing and would probably prefer not to have end user desktops doing ths sharing.
• What about security? CNET makes a point of mentioning that security experts are already concerned about Opera Unite. They have plenty of good reason. The only real protection in Opera Unite is based on passwords, and certain ways of sharing information put those passwords “in the clear” where anyone can read them. When asked if someone could get to resources on your PC that you didn’t explicitly share, an Opera spokeswoman said “Definitely not — unless they’re a hacker.” I wasn’t too worried that my friends and family would go looking for unauthorized data on my PC. It’s the hackers I’m worried about. Those are the ones who commit blackmail, fraud, and identity theft with your data. Your friends and family, not so much.
• What about that “whole new class of social services”? Opera Unite is supposedly extensible, allowing third parties to create plug-in modules to add functionality to it. Even if Opera itself is bulletproof, what are the odds all those third-party modules will be?

The Opera web browser itself, I like. It’s relatively light on resources, reasonably quick, seems to do a good job displaying web pages, etc. I’m not against people using it. Opera Unite, on the other hand, concerns me. It’s basically turning everyone who uses it into a web server administrator, without the requisite training in security. If it offers something you think you really need, then by all means go ahead and use it. But if you want my advice, I’d steer clear until it’s had a chance to prove itself in the real world.

If you really need your own web presence, look into third party web hosting. Some providers, like Godaddy.com, are relatively inexpensive and can provide the tools and expertise you need to get your content online without having to risk opening your personal computer up to the world. If you need absolute control over your content and want to host it on a box that belongs to you, at least invest in a separate machine to serve that content so that your personal data isn’t at risk if that machine is compromised.

Sorry there haven’t been updates on the “Month in Mac-Land” project for a little while. I’ve tried to at least get the news items up here (using a Mac when it’s accessible to me), but I’ve not commented on using OS X.

A Return to Windows, Briefly

For another site I do, it’s necessary to scan approximately 500 web sites at least once a week to see where the pages have changed. The tool that does this on Windows is called Check & Get. So far, I’ve not found anything on OS X that equates to it (though I would not be surprised if there is one), so I’ve resorted to going back to that application for the updates to that site. That does sort of break my promise not to go back to Windows without trying the app under Darwine or another free option like a VMware trial, but the person I made the bet with agrees that this “minor violation” is OK unless a true Mac app is found that meets my needs and can import the extensive configuration data stored in Check & Get.

OpenOffice on OS X

I did some work in OpenOffice on OS X earlier in the week, and I have to admit that for some reason I just don’t like OpenOffice as well on OS X as I do on Windows and Linux. There’s something about it, maybe the size of the cells in OpenOffice Calc, that just doesn’t feel quite right. Other than that, it was usable and did what I needed it to do.

Scrivener and Liquid Story Binder

I finished the tutorial for Scrivener and I do think it’s a neat product. I have something vaguely similar for Windows called Liquid Story Binder that I’ve barely used, mostly because I started this little project about the same time I acquired the license to that software. Scrivener looks to be more usable, but that should be taken with a grain of salt since I haven’t spent more than a few minutes with the Windows product.

Scanner Doesn’t “Just Work” with Vista or Leopard

Earlier tonight, I had an interesting experience to relate. My wife asked me to scan in photographs of the kids to use for a holiday greeting card. Because my card reader and scanner were closer to, and easier to hook up to, my Vista x64 PC, I started there. Since the scanner is 4-5 years old, there were no Vista or even XP x64 drivers available. I couldn’t get the XP 32-bit drivers to work with Vista. I tried hooking the scanner up to the Mac. Canon didn’t make Leopard drivers for it either, and it didn’t work with the Mac. I tried hooking it up to my XP laptop, but apparently it didn’t like that either and didn’t work with it, even though drivers were available. In desperation, I connected the scanner to a virtual machine running Windows XP 32-bit and it worked… albeit slower than normal. I’ve often wished that peripheral makers would open source their driver software once they abandon the product line, and this is why. The scanner is perfectly sound and still works, but it’s too old for Canon to bother making newer drivers for (whether Mac or PC). So, contrary to the Apple ads, OS X doesn’t always “just work”. In this case, neither OS X nor Windows Vista worked at all with the scanner. Linux would have been my last resort and I don’t know whether it would have worked or not.

Comparing iTunes and Zune Marketplace Content

I’ve also been trying to compare the iTunes and Zune “experiences” to see what I think of them. One thing I’ve been looking at is how many of the artists I care about have music on one or the other of the services, and whether there are albums by a favorite artist that can be found on one service and not another. (The list below is a very small, semi-randomly selected group of musicians I happen to enjoy listening to. I say “semi-randomly selected” because I chose them more or less randomly from my collection without looking to see what Zune or iTunes had for them beforehand.)

Barenaked Ladies: There is an “iTunes Originals” album that of course iTunes carries and Zune Marketplace does not. iTunes also carries the “Big Bang Theory” theme song that Zune does not. All the other albums, EPs, and singles found on iTunes by BNL are found on both
services.

Bowling for Soup: iTunes has an EP that the Zune Marketplace doesn’t, and the Zune Marketplace has one that iTunes doesn’t. In both cases, the full album including the songs on the EPs is available from both services, so this is a relatively minor difference.

Cake: Both Zune and iTunes have all the same albums, EPs, and singles.

Death Cab for Cutie: There is a live album on iTunes that isn’t on Zune, one studio album on
iTunes but not on Zune, and 2-3 iTunes exclusives recordings not on Zune. Aside from these, both services have the same albums. There is an iTunes exclusive that’s not on Zune, and there are 3 singles that are on Zune but not on iTunes. However, iTunes has the albums which include those singles, so this is not a major difference between what the two services offer. iTunes has a single and two EPs that don’t appear on Zune. With the exception of one recent single, the songs on the EPs appear on other albums and aren’t unique to iTunes. iTunes has an interview, an album, 2 singles, and 2 EPs that Zune doesn’t. Zune has an album, 2 EPs, and a single that iTunes doesn’t.

Fountains of Wayne:  There is an iTunes exclusive that’s not on Zune, and there are 3 singles that are on Zune but not on iTunes. However, iTunes has the albums which include those singles, so this is not a major difference between what the two services offer.

Cyndi Lauper:  iTunes has a single and two EPs that don’t appear on Zune. With the exception of one recent single, the songs on the EPs appear on other albums and aren’t unique to iTunes.

Morrissey:  iTunes has an interview, an album, 2 singles, and 2 EPs that Zune doesn’t. Zune has an album, 2 EPs, and a single that iTunes doesn’t.

On balance, for this group of artists, both iTunes and Zune have very similar amounts of content. iTunes has a few exclusives that Zune doesn’t. Zune has a few items iTunes doesn’t. While there appears to be slightly more on iTunes for this group of artists than on the Zune Marketplace, the major albums and EPs by these artists can be found on both services, with few exceptions. This is too small a sample to say that, for every listener, you’re going to find more content on one service or the other. In fact, depending on your tastes, the number of artists you’re comparing, etc., your results may differ wildly from the above.

Coming Up Next…

I’m not looking for sympathy when I share the following information, just providing a reason why you might not see much new on this site for a couple of weeks.

In September, I was diagnosed with cancer, one week after burying my mother for a different kind of cancer. In October, I was operated on to remove the cancerous tissue and the rest of the thyroid surrounding it. Two weeks ago, I was ordered to stop taking the thyroid replacement medication. Tomorrow, I begin an extremely restricted low-iodine diet. The effects of stopping the medication alone have been debilitating, including severe muscle cramps and pains, headaches, memory loss, dry skin, weak voice, muscle weakness, shortness of breath, and other symptoms I won’t bore you with. Suffice it to say I spend a lot of time resting when I’m not in the office. That means less computer use, and less to tell you about here.

Next week I begin radiation treatment to hopefully eliminate the rest of the cancer. Once the diet and the radiation treatment are in full effect, I have no idea how much worse I might feel than I do now (which is pretty crappy). So if you’re a regular reader, know that the site’s not been abandoned if it’s not updated between now and the end of the year. It just means I’m unable to get around to doing much with it. By the start of 2009, I should be almost back to normal and ready to start writing again. (On the other hand, this may be as bad as it gets and I could be writing articles here the whole time. I don’t know.)

In high school, I read a Herman Melville story called “Bartleby,the Scrivener: A Story of Wall-street” about a fellow employed in the pre-copy-machine days to make exact copies of legal documents for attorneys (a “scrivener”).  The story stands out in my memory because I took away from it something very different than my teacher intended.  When she read the story, my teacher came away from it feeling sorry for poor Bartleby, whose health had deteriorated such that he could no longer work, and whose employment was terminated by the story’s end.  When I read it, I saw a freeloader who got lazy and stopped doing his job, still expecting to be paid.  After all, when approached to do work, Bartleby didn’t say, “I’m sorry, my eyes and hands hurt too much.”  He said, “I prefer not to.”  The teacher said that in all her years of teaching, I was the first person not to take pity on Bartleby, and to interpret the story the way I did.  I took a sort of perverse pride in that, and still do.  But I digress…

It’s somehow fitting that I find myself years later looking at a software tool for writers called “Scrivener“.  Produced by Literature & Latte, this program purports to help writers collect, organize, and use their creative ideas in a minimally-structured environment.  I’d first heard about Scrivener several months ago when a Mac-fanatic writer/friend told me that he found it to be one of the best writing tools he’d ever used.  I forget his exact words, but they were along the lines of “This software is designed almost exactly for the way I write.”  High praise, to be sure.

Lately, I’ve been bitten by the creative bug.  The bug usually gnaws at my subconscious until I finally produce something creative that I’m satisfied with (as much as any writer or creative person is ever really “satisfied” with their work).  I have an inkling that the bug won’t be satisfied this time until I’ve written a short story or novella of some kind.  I’d kind of forgotten about Scrivener until Connor Byrne of Apple Eclectic was kind enough to provide me with a link to the developer’s web site.  Last night, I downloaded the software and installed it.   Over the last couple of evenings I’ve gone through the very informative tutorial.

I can see where Scrivener would be very useful.  It allows writers to collect “research” (which can consist of text, images, QuickTime movies, etc.) related to a writing project within the tool.  As the writer’s project begins to take shape, the writer places notes in the “draft” area of the product.  Scrivener includes an outliner and a virtual “corkboard” to help the writer turn the rough notes into a storyboard and put some actual structure to the work in progress.  When it’s all done, the writer can output the initial draft from Scrivener and import it into another application for layout, additional editing, etc.

For the last several years, I’ve had an idea for short story I want to write.  Perhaps this would be a good field test for Scrivener…

That’s all I have to share for tonight.  I was tired and not feeling terribly well when I got home from work this evening, so I really didn’t spend much time with the Mac (or Windows) at all.

This weekend, I decided to focus on Apple’s “iLife” applications (iDVD, iMovie, iPhoto, and iWeb).  I know iTunes is included in there, too, but since I don’t own an Apple iPod or iPhone I think a lot of the best functionality of iTunes is going to be lost on me, so I’m not going to spend time with it yet.

iDVD’s purpose in life is to allow Mac users to produce DVDs from their digital video files.  At a high level, the Mac user selects a menu template for the DVD, picks out the video clips to be included on the disk, sets up the menus, and burns the disc.  This is approximately the same workflow that any PC DVD authoring software uses, so picking up iDVD wasn’t difficult after using Windows software that does the same thing.

iDVD offers a number of different menu templates, all of which feature some kind of animation.  While some of the consumer-grade DVD authoring tools on Windows offer animated menus, they usually only offer a few in amongst a much larger array of non-animated templates.  iDVD menu templates include:

There are approximately 95 themes/templates in all.  Some are suited to a very specific purpose, such as a wedding video, vacation video, or holiday video, while others are more generic.  One thing they all share in common is an Apple logo in the lower-right corner of the template.  Personally, I find that as annoying as the little station-identification logos the networks put on their television programming.  I suspect Mac users don’t, as it serves as a “badge of honor” (as in, “I did this on my Mac”) and a subtle advertisement for Apple (as in “this is what a Mac can do”).

Thinking about iDVD as a potential “switcher” from Windows might, I decided to see how well it handled digital video files I had on hand.  As it happens, I’ve got about 200GB of digital video lying around. This includes shows I recorded using my now-dead analog video capture board, movies I captured from my old VHS tapes, and newer digital video from a variety of sources.  Having a wealth of different video formats and sources available to me to play with, I wanted to find out how compatible iDVD would be with video files of various types.

As on Windows, once the appropriate codecs (compress/decompression programs) were installed on OS X, it was possible to work with all the video formats I previously used on Windows – with one exception (and that might have worked if I’d known which codec was used to create it). Finding and installing the appropriate codecs was approximately the same difficulty level as for Windows.  The Mac did nothing to warn the user that it didn’t have a way to decode some of the AVI files, which is something I’ve seen Windows do before.

In terms of creating a DVD from compatible video files, iDVD is comparable to the tools I use on Windows.  The basic workflow is to select a desired template/appearance for the menus, select the video files to include on the disc, and start the encoding/burning process.  That same workflow is how iDVD operates.

The encoding process on OS X was approximately real-time. That is, a 30-minute video file was encoded for DVD by the 2.0 GHz Mac in approximately 30 minutes.  That, too, is comparable to Windows.

I should point out that the software I normally use on Windows includes an MPEG-2 codec, so the purchase of a codec is unnecessary on Windows, unlike OS X.  Since we’re only talking about a $20 outlay, that’s a minor nit to pick, but worth mentioning because it’s an issue you have with the Mac that you don’t with Windows.

In terms of the look of the menus, I would agree that they’re at least as good as those I’ve gotten from Windows applications, if not better.  The amount of animation in many of iDVD’s menu templates (”themes”) is greater than in a couple of the Windows applications I’ve used.  

For ease of use, I found iDVD to be comparable (i.e., not especially easier or harder) to use than the Windows DVD authoring packages I’ve used.  I imagine that an inexperienced computer user would get a little nicer looking menus out of iDVD than a typical PC application, but otherwise there’s no significant difference that I could see.

I actually had to read the help and manual for iMovie, as I didn’t find it as intuitive as the Windows software I’ve been using for the last several years.  After reading it, it didn’t take long to be able to open and edit movie files with iMovie.

There was one thing that really surprised me about iMovie.  Although I was able to import a variety of different video files into iDVD, only the MPEG-4 (.mp4) file I tested with would actually be usable as-is with iMovie.  In order to use any of the other video files I brought over from Windows, I would have had to convert them into a format iMovie liked.  According to the help system, it likes MPEG-4, MPEG-2, and DV formats.  That may be true, but it didn’t want to open the MPEG-2 (.mpg) files I brought over from Windows.  If I was making a permanent switch from Windows to the Mac, I think the limited number of video formats imported by iMovie would be frustrating to me, since nearly all of my 200GB of existing video files would not be a format it is willing to open… and quality is nearly always lost in any format conversion with video.

Aside from that, iMovie offers about a dozen different transition types and title styles.  It also allows importing of iTunes and iPhoto content into iMovie, which could (for instance) allow you to create a movie from your still photos and set that movie to any tune in your music collection.  While my PC video editing software doesn’t integrate with any photo management or music management software, it does provide the same functionality from my photo and music collections, so this is nothing that revolutionary.

That’s about all I can say for iMovie.  It’s accessible, does what it is intended to do, and offers a reasonable number of transitions and effects.  

My web sites use a content management system called Movable Type.  In order to change the appearance of the site, I need to change the “Style” and layout information in Movable Type’s preferences.  To make any kind of radical change, I need to perform surgery on the HTML and CSS files Movable Type uses. For web editing needs, iWeb is therefore close to useless.  But I realize I’m not the typical person building their first web site.  For them, this would help build a decent-looking web site relatively easily.

Much like the Apple logo appearing in the menus on iDVD, Apple includes a “Made on a Mac” logo a the bottom of iWeb-created pages by default. Fortunately, this is something you can remove if you don’t want your site to feature an unpaid advertisement for Apple.

Aside from that, it’s an impressive web editing tool, provided (as I noted earlier) that you don’t use a content management system that it would have to integrate with.  I was able to fiddle around with the sample pages and get some nice-looking results that I’m not sure I could do with any of the commercial Windows web editors.  (Then again, I’ve not used a higher-end editor on Windows other than the open source Kompozer and Nvu, which aren’t really competitors to iWeb.)

I’m pretty much a novice when it comes to photo editing, so I’m a good test case for iPhoto (unlike the rest of iLife).  I know enough with The Gimp to be able to do some basic masking and how to combine images from multiple photos into one, but no one’s going to look at my work and confuse it with a true professional’s.

For basic photo manipulation, like correcting under or over-exposure, sorting out color problems, and bringing out hidden details, iPhoto is very nice.  I was able to get results I was reasonably happy with after only a little fiddling around.  It can’t replace PhotoShop or The Gimp, because it doesn’t seem to have the more-advanced functionality, but for basic photo cleanup and organization, it’s a nice tool.  Would it convince me to ditch my Windows (or Linux) PC?  Not really.

On the one hand, I understand why Apple is proud of iLife.  It makes video editing, DVD authoring, digital photo cleanup, and web page creation relatively accessible to a typical computer user.  The templates included with each product allow for even the most amateurish content to be presented with a professional-looking style.  

On the other hand, as someone who’s experienced with digital video, DVD authoring, and web site management, they’re very basic tools.  Once you get beyond the desire to just place your existing content in the provided templates, the iLife applications are going to feel “limiting”.  For instance, if you wanted to create your own Themes in iDVD, there doesn’t appear to be a feature for that.  The same is true for iMovie in that you won’t be creating your own transitions or title styles.  And of course in iWeb you have to start with an existing template, although there is a bit more freedom to muck about with the page layouts.

I mentioned earlier in this series of articles that one of the things I do on Windows is write ad-hoc Microsoft Visual Basic applications for different things.  I lamented the fact that there’s no Visual Basic 6 for the Mac.  (Heck, VB6 for Windows is ancient at this point… need to update my skills…)  I looked at REALBasic and while I think it’s an intriguing product, the version I’m most interested in (which would allow cross-platform programming for Mac, Linux, and Windows) is priced way out of my ballpark ($500).

While looking to see what other “Basic” options I might have on OS X, I ran across an interesting bit of open source software, the Mono application framework. This is an open source attempt to bring the .NET platform to the Mac, Linux, and even on Windows (alongside Microsoft’s own .NET components).  I brought the development environment up earlier this evening and while it’s somewhat familiar to an old VB6 programmer, it’s also quite different.  I guess maybe it’s time I started learning VB.NET…

My friend brought over the iLife ‘08 DVD so that I could install that, after removing it from one of his Macs it was licensed for.  I was surprised at how long it takes to install that software.  I think I was remembering some of the earlier versions that installed in a couple of minutes, so the fact that this one took more than 10 minutes seemed lengthy.  I guess it’s fair to say Apple has added some things since I last looked at it.

I’ve had several Mac users talk about how cool iMovie and iDVD, so I am curious to have a look at them.  I’ve worked with several digital video packages on Windows, from the very basic stuff that shipped with video digitizer boards to some of the more expensive solutions out there.  It should be interesting to see how this compares.  Along the way, I’ve gotten used to a particular way of working with digital video software, so it will be interesting to see if that style adapts to the “i” applications.

I have no musical talent to speak of, so I’m probably not going to bother with GarageBand for the moment. I will give it a spin, however, just out of curiosity. 

Being something of a web geek, I’ll have to take iWeb out for a drive as well, though I will admit that I’m beginning with a pre-conceived notion that it’s probably not going to be advanced and flexible enough to suit me.

I’m starting to think one of the RAM chips installed in this test system is bad.  I know OS X is far from crash-proof, but I’ve seen a few behaviors that make me think I’m looking at faulty RAM.

Wednesday evening, Safari crashed while I had 2-3 tabs open.  I wasn’t able to reproduce the crash, so it probably wasn’t a bug in Safari.

Thursday, while attempting to install the Mono framework, I got an error indicating that the installer was corrupt. I ran it a second time and it worked fine.  The iLife installer also complained of that problem the first time I tried to use it.  Again, fine the second time. Memory errors tend to be hit-or-miss like that, I’ve found.

One of the screensavers locked up on me Tuesday night, now that I think about it.  I’ve never seen that happen on any of the earlier OS X releases, so again I’m thinking it’s probably the RAM.

I’ll have to see if I have some compatible RAM lying around that I can swap out.  I know OS X’s not crash-proof but this is a lot more crashing than I’d expect in only a few days.

Wonder if this was my friend’s secret motivation in loaning me the machine (to troubleshoot his crashing problems)?  Just kidding, Dave…

A Mac-hating friend of mine passed along a link to a Mac vs. PC comparison on the “topnewsblog”.  The comparison, such as it is, shows an iMac reportedly priced at $3999 (must be an old price, as they aren’t that expensive now unless you really deck one out) and a Dell PC at $1299 (also sounds a little high to me – maybe both include software?), then shows below it a picture of a game from each platform.  The Mac game is childish looking and claims to be running at only 8 frames per second, while the PC game looks almost like a movie scene at first glance.  I share the link not because I think it’s a great, fair, or even accurate comparison, but as an example of the perception that many people have about the Mac and Apple.  This is the kind of image Apple will need to overcome if it is to substantially increase its share of the desktop market.

A Mac-loyal friend of mine who’s aware of this site noticed my recent gaffe of being unaware of the “Mac OS X Software” option under the Apple menu in Leopard, and saw that I haven’t had the opportunity to keep up with OS X since the release of leopard.  Since he has multiple Macs in his home, he decided to make a bet with me… He would loan me one of his 2 GHz Core 2 Duo Macs for a month.  If, at the end of that month, I decided that I needed a Mac for myself he would win the bet.  If I didn’t decide I needed a Mac at the end of that time, he’d lose.  If he wins, I’ll be renaming this site and registering for a new domain name.  If he loses, he pays my hosting costs for this site for the next 6 months (around $50).  

The following terms were agreed upon:

• I will use the Mac exclusively at home, with the exception of dealing with any technical calls for Windows support from work, for which I’ll use Windows.
• I won’t use the Mac at the office, for a variety of reasons.
• I’ll post regular entries to this blog about my experiences, good and bad, with Leopard.
• If I come across some task that only a Windows application will resolve, I will try to run that application under Darwine rather than going back to Windows.

The Mac was dropped off on Saturday.  I fired it up and noticed that several patches were needed.  I began installing those patches.  In the middle of the 10.5.5 update, the Mac kernel-panicked.  After that, I couldn’t boot it up at all.  (This was most likely a fluke, and I don’t consider it a typical experience.)  I ended up reinstalling Leopard from a DVD and then applying all the available patches to it.  That suits my way of operating better anyway, since it helps me to be sure Leopard is set up the way I want it to be.

I spent some time on Saturday loading up the software I typically use on Windows and/or Linux:

• OpenOffice.org:  I use this rather than Microsoft Office at home for office automation tasks.  Since there’s a Mac OS X version, it made sense to use it.
• FreeMind:  I use this open source application for brainstorming and idea organization.  The Mac version reads my existing files from Windows and Linux.
• Firefox: I prefer this browser, but agreed I will give Safari first crack at any web pages I need to use at home, resorting to Firefox only when Safari doesn’t work.
• Inkscape:  I use this open source drawing tool rather than Illustrator or Corel Draw.
• Gimp:  I use this open source image manipulator rather than PhotoShop.
• Kompozer:  For editing text intended for the web, I use this HTML editor.

It was nice to see that all the apps I use regularly exist on OS X, with one exception.  For one of my sites, I use a tool called “Check&Get” which monitors a list of web sites for changes, highlights changed sites, and even marks the changed text on those pages.  This allows me to scan hundreds of sites for potential news items to post on one of my blogs.  I haven’t found a package that does this on OS X yet, though I suspect there is one.  

I spent a lot of time last night researching and brainstorming a “how to” article I’ll be posting on one of my sites soon.  Safari handled all the sites I visited for that research, with FreeMind handling all the idea gathering, and Kompozer did the job for writing the draft.  So far, no crashes or problems with any of the applications I’ve used on OS X, or with OS X itself.

My friend thinks iLife ‘08 and a couple of other apps will convince me to come back to the Mac fold again.  He’s going to bring the install disks over one evening this week and put them on this machine (after making sure he’s got a legal license to install them there).  I’m curious to see how the applications compare to what I’m familiar with on Windows and Linux.

iPhone owner James Kendrick of the “jkOnTheRun” blog shares an interesting story about the iPhone 3G and the process of getting one at his local Apple store:

The most interesting part of the entire purchase process was seeing the role that Microsoft played in every single iPhone purchase at the Apple store. You see, Apple doesn’t use cash registers or even Macs for the purchase process. No, they use handheld wireless devices made by Symbol, maker of such things, and every single one of them is running the Windows CE operating system. That’s right, Apple had to turn to Microsoft for a point-of-sale (POS) solution solid enough to work under such volume sales situations. These Symbol devices used barcode scanning to input each iPhone’s serial number and other information, used a credit card scanner to accept customer payment, and tapped a wireless connection to not only the Apple store’s network but to the AT&T network to activate the new service for the customer. They handled the mad crowd with ease and even kept working when the Apple store power flickered once. Talk about ironic.

Indeed. This is just one more reason why, here at The Mac Sucks, we remind you that while the Mac may be a fine computer for some uses, there are some things that Windows or Linux can simply handle better. Here’s a perfect case in point. Apple needed a reliable system that tied together disparate networks and technologies, and they couldn’t (or at least didn’t) use OS X… even in their own stores, where you’d think it’d almost be a requirement.