The battle is as old as the computer itself: Are Macs better than PCs, or vice versa? There's enough lobbying on both sides to feel dizzy and stay away from all computers, period. But I have an even more simple answer to that: if you don't understand computers--any computer--you're likely to screw things up. If you do understand computers, it doesn't really matter, because you'll get things done anyway.

Just to give you a funny example. At the department of my university we use iMacs, which are very popular among students (including the iBook). One day the power suddenly went out and all computers shut down. After the electricity was back again, no one could access the wireless web. I'd never even laid eyes upon Mac OS X before, yet it took me only a minute to play around in the system menus to re-reconnect to the network. I even set up a temporary ad hoc network to another computer to transfer files.

None of the Mac fanboys and fangirls knew what the hell to do. And they've been Mac users for years. How impressive is that? Should we blame an overpriced UNIX rip? I don't think so. In my experience Mac OS X is easy to use, about as simple as Windows Vista or 7. It's crowdism, stupid! People think they'll become heroes with the right machine, yet the computer is only the condition under which you work. If I buy a safe Toyota, only a moron would suggest I can drive any way I want to and still get home safe. You are not your computer. You are you. If you suck at computers, you'll suck at both PCs and Macs.

On a related point, I suspect liberals are committing a similar fallacy when they suggest the social environment completely decides the outcome of individual action.

I overheard a discussion yesterday where a bunch of girls were trying to figure out if it's worth waiting a few months for the release of Windows 7 before buying a new PC. One girl really enjoyed ranting on about the massive Vista flop. Her main points were:

• It's an incomplete OS that Microsoft released too early.
• It contains a lot of strange processes in the background that slows it down, for instance Adobe Reader.
• Windows 7 is going to be a better OS.

These are the standard-line criticisms people always use against Vista. Like many popular lines of criticisms like "absolute power corrupts absolutely" and "democracy is the least worst form of government we have," it's all bullshit. Here's why:

• Microsoft may have released it "too early," whatever that means, but today there are two Service Packs available and tons of updates to the core system. Vista is not an incomplete OS. Anyone who says so don't know what they're talking about. Looking at the desktop interface changes, multimedia support, troubleshooting system and core stability, Vista is as solid as a Windows edition has ever been.
• Those "strange processes" aren't that strange. If you install Adobe Reader, Quicktime or similar software, they will execute small processes running in the background to make the main programs start up faster. You can easily disable this, but in reality, if you have 2 GB+ of memory, will 2 MB really cost you performance? Probably not. Anyway, there aren't any strange processes in Vista compared to previous editions; each process carries a system description in the task manager. Only standard processes to be found here.
• How would you know if a currently unreleased OS will beat Vista? You don't--you never know until it's actually released in final version. Until then, it's just a bunch of notes.

We can now see these rants for what they are: repetition of negative media propaganda. This propaganda machine, which began even before Vista had been released, is similar to that recently seen against Windows 7, which has been so fierce John C. Dvorak called it "orchestrated." To be fair, both the release and marketing of Vista were quite terrible, and many problems remain. But as a whole, Vista is a great OS offering an improved interface from XP together with a stability and performance equal to or better than 2000. It's solid, and after having used it for a longer period of time, I would choose this over XP any time.

What happens to a market when new technology enables goods and services to be distributed in a completely new way?

For a century or so, the life of a home listener was simple: you had your disks, whether in the form of cylinders, 78s, LPs, or CDs, and, no matter how many of them piled up, there was a clear demarcation between the music that you had and the music that you didn’t. The Internet has removed that distinction. Near-infinity awaits on the other side of the magic rectangle.

This market was previously locked up to huge record industries who forced taxes on recordable cassettes and practically owned every big artist on the scene with years-long contracts. When the MP3 format arrived and audio equipment on the computer became cheap, just about anyone could record a decent album in their bedroom and promote it online.

But the market never took that new step that we all thought it would, because the record industry chose to wage war against the phenomenon (Napster) instead of adopting its methods, refining them, and profiting from them. Today classical lovers like Alex Ross and I can go online and order lossless versions of old Beethoven recordings, but the piracy meme has already become a culture.

I'm not really into piracy, but can't say I'm totally against it either. It's similar to being "against" alcohol and drugs, which from a larger view doesn't make much practical sense. Piracy filled the void in the market that otherwise could have been market shares owned by the music industry. This is what happens when you don't adapt to the current environment, but think you can dominate it and go back in time to when you were happy and rich. It never works, it only makes you bitter and poor, in every thinkable way.

Why am I leaving the Windows world?

So the day eventually comes when Microsoft stops sending out security updates to my ancient Windows 2000 Professional. Actually, that day will start as of July next year. Not being able to open newer Office files or update to the latest DivX version, I "realize" my nine year old operating system is out of the game. While it is continuing to run like it has always done, working with computers is also about keeping yourself up to date with security, stability and features.

Since I know I'm not the only one who's been running Windows all my life and am growing tired of it, a lot of us ask: So what else is there? There's the over-priced, "artsy" Mac, which doesn't interest me for various reasons. Then there are, as I see it, two main competitors on the open market: Linux and BSD. I have used Linux before but BSD has been suggested to me, said to be the world's most stable operative system. While Linux and BSD in the past have been nerdy, complex command line systems, today's graphical environments have made these systems popular among novices and professionals alike.

Being a student myself with a limited economy (and time), but an above-average skilled computer user, I want to try out something new. I want a stable, secure, fast and customizable system where I can write and print documents, surf the web, read email, listen to music, maybe watch a movie, and install the occasional application. I want something that's cheap and simply works out of the box. So a week ago I installed PC-BSD, which is a system running FreeBSD together with the desktop interface KDE. This is my experience after a week's work.

Installation & Configuration

The idea behind PC-BSD is to offer "a complete desktop operating system, which has been designed with the 'casual' computer user in mind," e.g. they've taken a complex system (FreeBSD) and made it simple enough for anyone to use. This means you get the power, stability and security of the BSD system, running in an environment similar to that of Windows. Better yet, PC-BSD is free of charge and can be downloaded from the PC-BSD home page. To learn how to install and configure the system, please follow this excellent guide.

PC-BSD vs. Windows 2000

Stuff I like

• The desktop environment looks like an elegant Vista install. Very nice-looking, easily configurable interface, and a powerful start menu system.
• It's less resource intensive than W2K when running software, and so as a result feels much faster.
• There's a lot of software out there, and almost of all the things I need are ready to be installed on PC-BSD, simple and fast like it'd be on a Windows machine.
• Automatic software and system updates while working, very smooth.
• The security is obviously superior to Windows, since BSD won't let you install anything or make any important system changes without entering the root password.
• It costs me nil, while Windows 7 is likely to ruin me.

Stuff I don't like

• The desktop environment runs a bit sluggishly on my machine, meaning it doesn't respond as fast as Windows does. I suspect the KDE desktop environment is way more powerful and thus more power consuming than Windows is.
• If something goes seriously wrong with the system, I have no idea what to do, but then again, how often do you fix Windows system errors?
• Microsoft Office is awesome, whatever version you run. OpenOffice, the leading Linux/BSD office suite, not so. In other words, while you have top-of-the-line software available on Windows, the Linux/BSD family will offer less selection.
• Hardware support can be hell. I could not use my ordinary (but ancient) mouse, so I had to manually make edits to system files, which is just the kind of stuff I was hoping to escape. I ended up buying a newer mouse, which worked out of the box. So, no ancient hardware unless you want trouble.
• No DirectX support, and no way to run Adobe Flash except on Firefox and the native browser installed on the system = no YouTube etc. on Opera. Will probably change in the future.

In summary, PC-BSD is an ambitious, powerful and impressive operative system that would perfectly suit and satisfy most average users - given it runs smoothly without any bigger problems on the machine. Installing and configuring the system might require a handy tech guy or someone like me who's been playing around with computers since their early teens. It's a bit like a newly invented car model: there are bound to be a few problems not fixed yet, but if it works, you'll like it. I definitely recommend this system and am now running it in parallel with Windows, until I can finally migrate for good.

Resources worth checking out

PC-BSD home page, including an active forum community where you can search for common problems and get help from professionals.

PBI dir, where you download software for free to your PC-BSD system.

FreeBSD FAQ guide for learning to master every inch of the system, if you so please.

Linus Torvalds, father of Linux, on Microsoft-bashing within Linux circles:

I may make jokes about Microsoft at times, but at the same time, I think the Microsoft hatred is a disease.

As usual, the leader behind an idea, a project or a movement, is considerably more intelligent than its followers, who insist on turning everything into a cheerleading contest. Microsoft is despised for pretty much the same reason that Europe hates America: It's successful. Torvalds recognizes this bitterness for what it is: Lame resentment obstructing from real goals.

Human civilization works in cycles; that much should be obvious to any astute observer. Hopefully, this is an indication we're evolving back into a somewhat sensible species:

The four-year liberal arts college has given up tractors in favor of oxen to plow and hay. It’s installed solar collectors atop a barn roof to heat water for its two-cow dairy operation. Carbon dioxide emitted from the metabolisms of 80 chickens is shared with a next door greenhouse where CO2 levels can dip during the winter.

“Modern agriculture is heavily reliant on oil and other fossil energy sources – it’s extremely inefficient, with more than 20 calories required to produce and deliver one food calorie to a consumer’s plate,’’ said farm manager and ecology economist Kenneth Mulder. The college's effort is helped in large part from a $110,000 grant from the Jensen/Hinman Family Fund.

But if future farming is to be more local and sustainable, he believes students should be exploring organic growing in the context of traditional farming practices. It also gives students a more “intimate relationship” with the farm.

This is a good step forward from simply slapping an "organic" label on a fruit and selling it at Whole Foods. While this will inevitably be turned into a marketing ploy to get people to pay high prices for organic goods from this farm, the idea is nice: using a real life example to show people that we can still simplify society; that there is reward in doing things efficiently, building character the old-fashioned way. And this is in Vermont, where for at least two seasons per year, farming is nearly impossible.

If we are going to use electricity and power for anything on a regular basis, it should be for things like farming. So the point may be lost on people who care about power seats in their cars or, worse, power reclining sofas for their living room (sadly, I think these do exist, even for those not stricken with handicaps). While realizing that it would be difficult to give up modern day conveniences most don't even see, such as certain farm machinery, it's also important to understand that without huge growths in population, these machines never would have existed for the purpose of making farming ultra-efficient as farming is best suited to being localized instead of nationalized as it is today.

Milan, Italy - Thanks to the revolutionary research of Dr. P. Sandrini, a professor of computer science and genetics in Milan, our dreams of a fully-automated lifestyle may come true sooner than we think. Using new advances in organic circuitry, Sandrini was able to insert a microchip into the brain of a young guinea pig, which successfully took over many of its motor and behavioural functions.

Still more impressive, the guinea pig can be "remote controlled" via an antenna extending from its ear. Experiments are due to begin with brain-dead or severely impaired human subjects in 2012. At a press conference earlier this week, Sandrini was quoted saying, "Computer scientists gave up the idea of 'good old fashioned AI' years ago, but organic-electronic hybrids are something that simply never occurred to us 25 years ago. Now, the "home robot" – or "manbot", if you prefer – may be a reality as early as 2024."

Needless to say, the potential for this technology is astounding. Imagine a "manbot" to go to work for you, do the grocery shopping, clean the house, and even give you a foot-massage? Undoubtedly, early interest (and funding) will be for military applications, but economist Martin Sales foresees a socio-economic revolution. "This could be the dawn of a capitalist utopia – wage-free labour, which will leave consumers free to do what they do best – consume," he says. But don't expect too much too quickly – the first commercial models are expected to set you back at least $2.5 million.

The iPod is a neat little device, but those familiar with the tech landscape in the late 90s know that Apple was a bit of a different company back then. Having just re-hired Steve Jobs in 1997 after he was fired from his own company in 1985, Apple began, as Jobs himself said, putting the "sex" back in the products:

A few minutes later, in walked Steve Jobs. The co-founder of the once proud company had been fired by Apple 12 years before. He had returned seven months earlier as a consultant, when Amelio acquired his NeXT Software Inc. And now Jobs was back in charge. Wearing shorts, sneakers, and a few days' growth of beard, he sat down in a swivel chair and spun slowly, says McCluney, now president of storage provider Emulex Corp. (ELX ). "O.K., tell me what's wrong with this place," Jobs said. After some mumbled replies, he jumped in: "It's the products! So what's wrong with the products?" Again, executives began offering some answers. Jobs cut them off. "The products SUCK!" he roared. "There's no sex in them anymore!"

Well, I guess we know what his motivation was all about upon returning. Who could resist making a phallic statement after a Board of Directors that fired him twelve years earlier got on its hands and knees to come and save the company? And save it from what - from becoming a niche brand? It always was, and never really was supposed to be a mainstream product.

We all know what happened in the fall of 1997: the first iMac. I was a first semester freshman in college when the iMac came out, and I remember kids "ooing" and "aahing" over these machines. My decision was simple: I was in business school, so what the hell would I want a Mac for if I needed to run Microsoft Office? Plus, I loved toying with the inside of these machines, upgrading memory and swapping out motherboards...something a Mac didn't offer in its glossy but sealed packaging.

Then, a couple of years later, the first iPod came out. You'd think die-hard Apple enthusiasts would have loved the idea of Apple getting involved in the new MP3 player market, but not quite. Here are some quotes from the hardcore Apple enthusiasts back in 2001 when the iPod was unveiled:

"iPoop... iCry. I was so hoping for something more."

...

"Great just what the world needs, another freaking MP3 player. Go Steve! Where's the Newton?!"

...

"Sounds very revolutionary to me. :(
hey - heres an idea Apple - rather than enter the world of gimmicks and toys, why dont you spend a little more time sorting out your pathetically expensive and crap server line up? or are you really aiming to become a glorified consumer gimmicks firm?"

...

"It's now at the online Apple Store! $400 for an Mp3 Player! I'd call it the Cube 2.0 as it wont sell, and be killed off in a short time...and it's not really functional. Uuhh Steve, can I have a PDA now?"

This just goes to show: the die-hard Apple enthusiasts don't care about hip commercials making fun of Windows, nor do they care about market share. They care about the products, and not the sex of the products, but the actual function (wow, who knew?). Jobs came back to Apple to make them sexy, and that worked for a while. But he sacrificed substance to the point where Apple's marketing the idea of switching to a Mac because of how easy it is to run Windows and Office on their machines, and this is clearly not the direction the company was headed twenty years ago when the Board of Directors fired Jobs so they could grow the company without his input in the name of profit and stock price.

So, for all you new Mac owners who paid $2,000 or more for a laptop that doesn't do half of what a Toshiba can do, and for less money, pat yourselves on the back: you've bought into Steve Jobs vision of a sexy product...doesn't it feel good?

According to Slashdot, more Americans play video games than go to the movies:

New research from the NPD Group has found that the number of Americans who play video games has surpassed the number who go to movies. In a survey of over 11,000 people, 63% had played a video game within the past six months, while only 53% had gone to a movie. They also found that the purchase of game consoles was on the rise, as were new methods of accessing the games themselves, such as playing over a social networking site or downloading a game onto a mobile phone. The report said, "the average gamer spent just over $38 per month on all types of gaming content" in the first three months of 2009, adding that "video games account for one-third of the average monthly consumer spending in the US for core entertainment content, including music, video, games."

I bet a lot of these games are multiplayer games, but the addiction and loner factor is probably big. Yes, there are those who spend all their money on collecting movies, but they are hopefully fewer, and hopefully don't watch movies more than two hours a day (which is still arguably unhealthy). Going to the movies usually means you socialize with friends or date someone. The game trend is a further privatization of social life into the sphere of a virtual reality. Unsurprisingly, addicted gamers show all the symptoms of alienated losers:

"I have a friend who is addicted to an MMO (Pirates of the Burning Sea). On a typical day, he will wake up around 9am, browse the forums for a bit, then go online and stay online all day, playing until about 3am the following morning, taking only toilet breaks and stopping to eat ready-meals. While the rest of the house works hard revising for exams, this friend will be playing his MMO instead. Now, I am pretty confident that this comprises an unhealthy addiction; unfortunately, I have no idea what to do about it. Any attempt to physically prevent him from playing the game would most likely result in an outburst of anger and possibly physical violence. Attempts at telling him he has a problem have been met with derision and angry retorts. Slashdotters, what would you do to help out a friend in this situation? Perhaps you are a reformed addict yourself — if so, how did you break out of the habit? Or maybe I should just leave well enough alone and allow him to continue? Any thoughts are gratefully received."

My theory is that the most addicted gamers are low-T guys. Computer games involve no real risk taking, typically constitute low-IQ demanding tasks, and can be mastered by pretty much anybody with too much time on their hands. In short, a perfect game for low-T people who don't want to get involved in real competition. Its nerdy character with virtual worlds adds to it all.

The best rehab available for those gamer victims: force them to date a competitive girl, organize a family dinner, or plant a tree somewhere. If you're going to game, why not gamble instead--an activity that at leasts puts your testosterone levels and risk taking to the test?

Why I only listen to cranky geeks about technology:

I started out viewing technology as a means to an end in the 1970’s when I thought technology could help me get organized. It never did the job and I became cranky. I’m more disorganized than ever.

Do we control technology, or does technology control us? Tech geeks who are cranky are tired of the frenzy about technology itself and now just want the damned things to work. Finally this idea is receiving some financial backing:

A Dutch university has received a $3.3 million grant from the European Research Council to fund 5 more years of work on a Unix-type operating system, called Minix, that aims to be more reliable and secure than either Linux or Windows. The latest grant will enable the three researchers and two programmers on the project to further their research into a making Minix capable of fixing itself when a bug is detected, said Andrew S. Tanenbaum, a computer science professor at Vrije Universiteit. 'It irritates me to no end when software doesn't work,' Tanenbaum said. 'Having to reboot your computer is just a pain. The question is, can you make a system that actually works very well?

This is what every tech journalist today, with a few exceptions, are missing: okay, so this new piece of software can rotate the wallpaper, self-organize menus, communicate with iPods and play a lullaby before you turn off the computer--but how do I make it simply work? Apple has used this as marketing rhetoric for ages. Now, let's make it reality.