Thinkcage

The kids are out trick-or-treating so I’m sitting on the porch, enjoying the evening and posting our pictures while I hand out candy. It’s unusually warm this Halloween in Oklahoma — even at 7pm it is almost 70º outside. Usually we have to bundle up the kids because it is so windy and cold; often it’s in the 40º’s for trick-or-treating. But enough of that, here are the pics (you can click any of them to see a larger picture):

“Hi, I’m a Mac.”

First up: my costume. I normally don’t dress up for Halloween, but after my coworker, Justin Boeckman told me what he was going to do I could not resist. Mostly because, if you know me you know this is not at all out of character. Justin totally carried this one, perfectly imitating John Hodgman’s PC character from the Apple commercials.

Costumes

Next up: pictures of the kids’ costumes. In the photos are Grace, Brett, Brett’s friend Brayson, and Grace’s friends Ashley, Allee, and Alyssa.

Puppies

And not to be left out, Holly dressed up the dogs and took them on the first leg of the evening.

Pumpkins

Finally, we have the pumpkins. Grace used a pretty cool set of Mr. Potato Head style pieces to decorate hers. No mess!. Brett went with traditional carving for his best Jack-o-lantern yet. And me, I tried a new technique I’ve been curious about. Instead of just cutting holes, I carved the meat of the pumpkin for a more sculptural feel. It didn’t come out quite as nicely as I might have wanted, but I learned a lot for next year, and it was good enough to win the pumpkin contest at work!

Enjoy the pics and have a great Halloween!

Note: This is a comment to a ZDNET blog post – I refuse to register with them just to comment on a blog entry. Get with it, guys.

Dana Gardner’s reaction to the new Intel-based Macs announced today at the Macworld Expo really got me going today. In Apple needs to watch its back on the OS 9 app crowd, he suggests that Apple had better worry about it’s installed base of users that still haven’t made the leap to OS X. You know, OS X, Apple’s operating system that was released in 2000. I understand that users have legacy applications on old boxes, but I really don’t think it is in Apple’s best interest to continue to support those users. Things move too quickly in technology to worry about users that are so far behind the curve. This is arguably Microsoft’s biggest problem. One thing that many Windows users have been calling for over the past years is a clean, consise re-write of windows that reversed the years of bloat and gave us the clean, stable, and quick OS the Windows should be. But no, Microsoft couldn’t cut the life support to the legacy users and so we have Windows XP that, while it is one of the more solid releases (ok, Windows 2000) but falls far short of its potential. This is largely due to the legacy code.

For years we watched Apple release new versions of OS X that each ran fast than the previous version on the same hardware while adding even more functionality. Meanwhile Windows just got bigger and more bloated. And Apple developers have followed suit updating their apps with each new release to offer more at the expense of the users who refuse to upgrade.

Personally, I can’t imagine still using an OS 9 system these days. The suggestion that these legacy users will go to ebay for hardware is a good one. But let’s not encourage Apple to sacrifice innovation for the sake of a few dinosaurs. The third-party and reseller market can keep them happy while the rest of us enjoy the latest in computer innovation.

This NY Times Article really captures the iPod phenomenon. In the article U2’s Bono describes their recent relationship with Apple:

Speaking just after the event, Bono, U2’s lead singer, said the band was not charging Apple a penny to be in the ad. (The band says it had turned down as much as $23 million to use its music in other commercials.) In its three-year life, the iPod has achieved such “iconic value,” Bono said, that U2 gets as much value as Apple does from the commercial, by promoting its music and the new Red and Black U2 edition of the iPod, for which the band gets royalties.

Until the iPod’s myriad competitors figure out that this is what they are competing against, hardware specifications be damned, this is going to remain a one horse race.

One of my favorite toys for OS X, Konfabulator, is a nifty little application that adds configurable widgets to your desktop. Useful widgets might display weather conditions, a calendar, to-do lists, RSS feeds, or application status for things like iTunes. And of course there are any number of widgets that are of dubious use such as the one the floats a submarine across your desktop. And best of all for the other 95% of the world, it is now available for Windows (think Windows 95 Active Desktop if it didn’t crash your system). The Windows version seems to be nearly identical to the OS X version and is compatible with many of the existing widgets. It seems that the ones that are excluded use mac-specific features and would be of no use on Windows anyway.

I would highly recommend that you give it a test drive. Graphically, many of the widgets are really gorgeous supporting alpha blending and anti-aliasing so they work seamlessly with your desktop with glows and shadows.

Developers will the keen to the fact that they are completely built with JavaScript making them easy to create for nearly any web designer—write your own!

I broke down and joined the head-bobbing, white-corded masses and bought an iPod a couple of months ago. There is little that I can say about this fantastic little device that hasn’t been said time and again. As a designer of user experiences, this is the holy grail from the tiny word “enjoy” greeting the purchaser as he opens the package to the way the backlight fades out instead of merely shutting off. Its a lovely piece of electronics that doesn’t feel technical or well, like electronics. It changes the way you listen to music.

An article in Wired News today captured my feelings on this device very accurately.

So, for example, music allows people to use their eyes when they’re listening in public. I call it nonreciprocal looking. Listening to music lets you look at someone but don’t look at them when they look back. The earplugs tell them you’re otherwise engaged. It’s a great urban strategy for controlling interaction.

It’s also very cinematic. The music allows you to construct narratives about what’s going on.

Its amazing the detachment, the feeling of being in a personal space, that one gets by putting on a pair of headphones and listening to music. I particularly enjoy listen to music while shopping—perfect for canceling-out the hubbub of a busy grocery store or mall. And, of course, the ability to tune out the periphery at work is another great use.

The iPod has liberated me from the mundane and given legs to portions of my music collection that I haven’t touched in years. Pretty powerful stuff.

The Mac-faithful no doubt know that Apple upgraded their Safari web-browser to version 1.2 last week, and the usual cries of outrage soon followed as some users soon discovered that it was a Panther-only upgrade not available to users who had not bought the latest version of OS X.

Many assumed this was part of Apple’s strategy of the annual fee, that is, releasing a new version of the OS on a yearly basis for $130. Many Mac users feel like its almost a rental of the OS, a fee to keep current and many, like myself, think it’s a fair trade. However, Apple’s response to the outcry as reported by MacWorld UK is quite different:

Apple says: “Safari 1.2 has been designed to leverage advances in Panther not present in the Jaguar release of Mac OS X. These Panther technologies are needed to deliver Safari v1.2’s most significant improvements. For example, personal certificate support is made possible by Panther-specific security technologies that are simply not available on Jaguar.”

The company explains that is does in fact continue to offer support for the Jaguar-friendly Safari 1.0: “Safari v1.0 continues to be available for customers running on Jaguar-based systems and has recently been updated with the latest security improvements,” it points out.

Essentially, Apple explains that the browser is so tightly integrated into the OS that it is not possible to offer a version for the previous OS. Sound familiar? A key argument in Microsoft’s long-running anti-trust case has been that IE was an integral part of Windows and could not be completely removed.

So, what is happening here? Is Apple pulling a Microsoft and using their OS dominance to ensure that all Mac-users use Safari and continually buy paid upgrades? Or is this idea better related to Microsoft’s recent announcement that they were ending stand-alone development of their Internet Explorer browser? Essentially both makers are saying the same thing: you have to upgrade (buy) the OS to get the latest version of included software.

As a web designer, this has several points of interest. For one, it could potentially simplify web development as the number of browsers and versions that have to be supported would most likely dwindle. It would be convenient to know that a user running Windows version x.x has y capabilities and Mac user running OS X version z.z has xy capabilities.

While that might be convenient, another point worth noting is that only updating browser features (and potentially bugs) with an OS upgrade is a very slow process. Already Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 is several years old and the next version is not scheduled to appear until it is released with the next version of Windows, speculated to see the light of day in 2005 or 2006. That is a long time to wait for fixes to well-documented rendering bugs and other failings of this market-leading browser. Even Apple’s annual upgrade is too infrequent in the current world of web development where a single browser non-conformity can hold back the state of development for years, despite only affecting a small percentage of users. (Any developers still supporting Netscape 4.x know what I mean?) And that is not to speak of upgrade rates and adoption, which can take years. In fact, Windows XP which was released in October 2001 still does not have the majority of OS version share among Microsoft users. Similarly, Mac OS X cannot boast more users than its previous version despite three years of trying.

While the prospect of an OS where the web browser is no longer a stand-alone application has some appeal, the reality is it will likely retard an already slow-developing web. What we can do as developers, is make sure that content is browser independent and make browser/OS versioning irrelevant.