Coding Horror

I've always wondered why digital cameras express their resolutions in terms of megapixels, rather than the typical pixel height and width numbers you find on computer displays. Nobody buys a 21" LCD with 1.9 megapixels of resolution; they buy a 21" LCD that can display 1600 x 1200. But they're technically the same thing: 1600 x 1200 is 1,920,000 pixels, or 1.9 megapixels. It looks like we're using the old hard drive manufacturer's trick of dividing by powers of ten.

One problem with using the megapixel designation alone is that you have no idea what the aspect ratio of those pixels are-- 16:9? 5:4? 1.33:1? Who knows, maybe that 1.9 megapixel camera is really taking 192 x 10,000 pictures. Pixels are pixels, right?

The wikipedia entry on computer display resolutions has a great chart that contrasts the most common monitor resolutions, along with the ratio line that each falls on:

It's interesting to note that the most common monitor resolutions (800x600, 1024x768, etc) are 4:3. I didn't realize how oddball the 1280x1024 ratio was. The widescreen variants are really catching on quickly, too, if the current LCD monitor selection at Newegg is any indication.

But the alphabet soup of display designations isn't doing anyone a favor, either. I'd much rather know that a display is capable of 1600 x 1200 instead of the cryptic designation UXGA.

You can compare the different resolutions of most common electronic devices (cameras, screens, video, etc) and many common formats using this nifty dynamic megapixel overview tool. Some of the camera models listed tend to have 4:3 aspect ratios, like PC displays. But not all. The 3:2 ratio is also common. Here are a few samples:

• Canon Powershot Pro 1
  3264 x 2448 (8 megapixels, 4:3)
• Canon EOS 5D
  4368 x 2912 (12.7 megapixels, 3:2)
• Nikon D70s
  3006 x 2000 (6 megapixels, 3:2)

Evidently the 3:2 ratio derives from the native dimensions of classic 35mm film.

People keep rediscovering the article Don Norman posted a few months ago criticizing what he thinks of as Google's faux simplicity:

"Oh," people rush to object, "the Google search page is so spare, clean, elegant, not crowded with other stuff." True, but that's because you can only do one thing from their home page: search.

Of course, I don't agree. Philipp Lenssen notes that Don completely ignored the search results page UI:

The second point I disagree with in Donald Norman's article is that Google only does one thing. Apparently, Donald doesn't understand Google oneboxes – the query-specific boxes on top of organic search results, interfacing services Google News, Google Maps and so on – or he purposely omits them. While a Google onebox is not a solution to all needs (for one thing, it doesn't allow me to explore, because I need to know what I want in order to form a search query), there's also the "more" link leading to a Google sitemap with an overview of additional services.

But Bill de hra expands the argument in an intriguing direction:

Perhaps the hunt and peck approach of searching (along with gaming) is becoming the dominant computing metaphor, replacing nearly 3 decades of user interfaces based on the metaphor of an office desktop (ironically the metaphor itself being pushed into irrelevancy by desktop computing). If so, usability experts will need to reconsider what they deem to be best and appropriate.

The Google search box could be viewed as the ultimate command prompt; you type what you want, and it provides the answer. Eventually. Once you realize that the Google search box is really a type of command prompt, the criticism that Google "only does one thing" is.. well, downright hilarious. Search is the beginning of every command. You can go anywhere and do anything from there.

I've never been a huge fan of the desktop metaphor. It's easier to see the problems if you take it to an extreme, as General Magic's defunct Magic Cap operating system did:

As much as I dislike the limitations of the desktop metaphor, I'm a little uneasy about the idea that the ultimate user interface we end up with in the next ten years will bear more resemblance to a command prompt ..

.. than to the point and click GUI interfaces pioneered at PARC.

Still, there's a lot to be said for typing stuff to quickly get to what you want. For example, I often bail out when attempting to visually point and click my way around crowded web pages; instead, I search for a relevant word on the page using incremental search. It's nearly always faster than visually scanning the entire page for the right content or link.

Microsoft has finally activated the most aggressive part of their Windows Genuine Advantage program -- active notifications.

After downloading the latest Windows updates, if your Windows cd-key doesn't validate against Microsoft's online database of cd-keys, you may be greeted with this unpleasant five-second mandatory delay dialog at the login page:

On top of that, you get a repeating balloon notification that nags you periodically while you use the operating system:

The warnings also get more dire as time progresses:

This copy of Windows is not genuine and you have not resolved the issue. This computer is no longer eligible to receive select security upgrades from Microsoft. To protect your computer, you must click Get Genuine now.

The language here is a little misleading. Microsoft is socially obligated to provide critical security updates to pirated machines. Otherwise those vulnerable machines will eventually be compromised and potentially used in denial of service attacks and other nefarious schemes. Microsoft does provide so-called "critical" updates to all Windows machines, regardless of whether or not they're genuine.

This is all courtesy of the mandatory "Windows Genuine Advantage Notification" service that is being delivered now through Windows Update. This isn't just a service you can disable, or a process you can kill in task manager, either. You'll have to install some kind of questionable third-party hack to get around it.

I suppose it's only malware if you're a pirate. What's a poor, beleaguered user to do? Microsoft offers five options:

1. Purchase a valid Windows XP cd-key online from Microsoft.
2. If you can produce high-quality counterfeit media, along with a proof of purchase, you can get a free replacement key from Microsoft.
3. Contact your reseller for redress.
4. Purchase Windows XP from a local OEM reseller.
5. Purchase Windows XP at a retail location.

Notice the word "Purchase" appears in three of those five options. There's almost no way to finagle a free cd-key out of this.

I found a Microsoft presentation on Windows Genuine Advantage (WGA) which goes into a lot more detail. It also provides this graph of WGA validation failure rates across the United States:

All I can say is, get used to increased forms of online discrimination between genuine and pirated versions of software. Windows Vista will have an even more advanced form of WGA; pirated versions of Vista, for example, will not be able to enable the fancy Aero "glass" interface.

Microsoft is certainly entitled to protect their IP by annoying pirates into buying cd keys. But I wonder if they're veering too far into the enforcement side of the optimal piracy rate.

When I wrote that the Mac Mini was an underpowered, expensive box at the beginning of 2005, I had no idea that Apple would do something wonderful to fix this: switch to Intel x86 CPUs.

I guess Apple has conveniently forgotten that whole "supercomputer on a chip" marketing campaign for the G4 processor:

Apple has been promoting the G4 as the world's first "supercomputer on a chip," noting it can process data in 128-bit chunks - double the speed of most traditional computers. Apple officials claim the chip is nearly three times faster than the 600MHz Pentium III chip manufactured by rival Intel Corp.

Today's modern Macs are powered by Intel Core Duo CPUs. And according to Apple, they run nearly five times faster than the G4 models they replace.

That's gotta sting a little.

But no matter. Forget the reality distortion field advertising. Forget the fact that Apple just obsoleted their entire PC line overnight. Again. The important thing is that the new Apple models really are as fast as PCs-- because they are PCs.

Although John Gruber's overbearing Mac zealotry grates on me, I have to agree with him on one very important point:

But second, look at that quote in the context of Apple's iPod strategy. "At the critical juncture […] when they should have gone for market share, they went for profits." Of all the myriad ways that Apple's iPod position today differs from their Macintosh position 20 years ago, perhaps none is greater than this: With the iPod, Apple is going for market share.

iPods are certainly premium products, at least in the greater context of "portable audio players" -- handheld audio tape and CD players typically cost around $20 or $30. Go back in time to early 2001, and I wager you'd have a hard time getting most people to believe that they'll soon be purchasing $300 and $400 handheld music players.

But when compared to other digital music players, iPods are not only competitively priced, they're often cheaper. Today's Apple is very different than the old Apple, but many people still haven't caught on.

I cut my computing teeth on the Apple //, and to a lesser extent, the Macintosh. I can personally attest that these were incredibly expensive machines at the time. But the current crop of x86 Apple laptops are cheaper than nearly every other x86 laptop of equivalent spec. That's amazing.

But don't take my word for it. Core Duo news examines the Macbook Pro:

[The Macbook Pro] is actually $500 cheaper then 17″ Dell XPS1710 with similar configuration. Granted, Apple Macbook doesn't have the latest and greatest nVidia 7900 card. But with the ability to run Windows XP, 17″ Apple Macbook Pro looks like a great choice to replace your old Wintel desktop.

.. and the latest MacBooks:

We already told you that the Intel based high end MacBook Pro was very competitive in price with high end Windows based rivals. So we checked the latest 13.3" MacBook with available PC alternatives. And we weren't disappointed:

• Asus W7J with 1.83 GHz chip, 1 GB of memory and 100 GB HDD will cost $1939. MacBook with the same configuration - $1699
• Rock Pegasus 330 with 1.66GHz chip, 512MB of memory, 80GB HDD and TV Tuner - $1343, MacBook with the 1.83GHz chip, same memory and HDD, without TV tuner - $1149
• Fujitsu Lifebook S6310 with 1.66 GHz processor, 512 MB of memory and 80GB HDD - $2033. MacBok with the 2.GHz Intel chip, same memory, HDD and other specs - $1349

If earlier you usually paid premium for Apple's laptops and desktops compared to Wintel PCs of similar performance, now you can get a MacBook cheaper then most of its PC rivals. The Apple MacBook is cheaper as a PC even if you have to purchase standalone Windows XP OS and run it on MacBook via Bootcamp. Is there any reason not to buy a MacBook if you want a highly portable 13" notebook?

I spent quite a bit of time searching for x86 laptops of similar spec and form factor, and there's just no avoiding it: the Apple x86 laptops are a great deal for the price. Sure, you can find a few edge cases where Apple loses, such as the ultraportable category. But the rare few laptops that are comparable in price and specification can't compete with Apple's design chops.

Running Windows on an Apple x86 laptop is relatively easy with Bootcamp, but it still takes some juggling to get a few essential things we take for granted with other x86 laptops, such as proper right-click support, and standard keyboard mappings.

If these kinks get worked out over time-- and I'm sure they will-- my next wintel laptop might just be an Apple.

The last post about programmers and chefs reminded me of a point raised in the classic Pragmatic Progammers' presentation Herding Racehorses, Racing Sheep:

vs

Instructions that are appropriate for a novice may be totally inappropriate for an expert. This is something I touched on a while back in Level 5 Means Never Having to Say You're Sorry. As James Bach said:

A maturity model is basically a gang of best practices hooked on crystal meth. In my maturity model of the industry, promoting a maturity model is mere level 2 behavior. By level 3, we outgrow it.

However, I do think Bach's views on this issue are unnecessarily black and white. The idea that a recipe (eg, a best practice, a methodology, or a maturity model) is completely worthless is just as wrongheaded as the idea that everything should be based on a strict recipe. In other words, even an expert chef may occasionally find it helpful to refer to a recipe card.

There's no reason these two models can't coexist. You should always start with the common denominator recipe, of course, but you may want to provide some alternative guidelines and ideas for those cooks who have outgrown traditional recipes, too. The point is to avoid an onerous, religious one-methodology-fits-all view of the world.

The image of the UNIX wizard used in Andy's presentation is striking. I researched the image and found this bit of history at unix.org:

The classic UNIX magic poster by Overacre was distributed at past USENIX conferences and featured a white bearded wizard with UNIX related things around him, for example a spool of thread, a black cat, a boot, a fork, pipes, buckets, a number of containers, labelled with things like tar, null, awk, uucp. There is even a 'C' container, and a partially obscured and broken 'B' container.The wizard is pouring mysterious liquids into a giant shell. Subsequent posters in the series included UNIX wars and UNIX views.

I can't find images of the other two posters, unfortunately, but you can see more of Gary Overacre's amazing art at his website.