Is OS X more reliable than Vista? The numbers don't lie.

When you have a computer problem, what’s the first thing you do? Okay, after you pound on the keyboard and curse at the tech gods. Of course the first thing you’re going to do is Google you issue and try to find a fix. So it only makes sense that the more searches there are for an issue, the more people have that issue. Conversely, the less searches, the less prevalent is that particular problem. Therefore, if one were to contrast two sets of search trends, one could see which of the two were more common. So that’s what we’ve done... sort of.

We’ve taken common, non-platform-specific computer issues that would be searched for and looked at the Google Trends over the past 12 months, comparing the frequency that the search involves the term “Vista” and “OS X.” Just to be safe, we also did all the searches with Vista against the term “Leopard,” and it should be noted that every result was identical to the results of the OS X search.

Now, before we get into this: According to Marketshare, as of April, OS X’s marketshare was 7.38% -- roughly half of Vista’s 14.57%. Therefore, if issues across the platforms are roughly equal proportionately, OS X’s results should be roughly half of Vista’s. Well, once you see the numbers, you’ll see that we could have broadened the search to the entire 90% marketshare of all combined Windows versions and the disproportion of the installed user base still wouldn’t make a difference.

The trend searches (in all charts, Vista is represented in blue, OS X is represented in red):

(OS) Crashes:

With this one, we thought we’d start off with the big one and see what OS was all-out crashing the most.

(OS) Hangs:

Here, we thought we’d increase the chances of a more evenly-matched result by searching for a less critical problem. Maybe we need to dig deeper.

(OS) Help:

It seems even looking for general help is uncommon for OS X.

(OS) Sucks:

Sometimes people get fed-up with their OS and just want to find people to commiserate with. Well, some people.

Finally, we thought we’d look into how may people were ready to take decisive action and downgrade their OS. At this point, the figures were unsurprising.

Downgrade (OS):


Even considering that there are no specific numbers given by Google, it's hard to argue against zero being the lower number. Anyone else have some interesting Google Trends that stack OS X and Vista against one-another?

"iPhone Black" on AT&T's phone selection page

There have been a lot of claims about the seemingly imminent 3G iPhone. One of them is that the aluminum backing will be replaced by high-quality, glossy-black plastic. Well, AT&T may have inadvertently let the cat out of the bag on that particular rumor.

It seems that a drop-down on the AT&T site for selecting phone model listed iPhone and iPhone Black as multiple options. When this tidbit hit the blogosphere, they were quick to reply, stating that it was simply a “temporary placeholder” to differentiate between the 8GB and 16GB models that hadn’t been properly re-assigned. The fact that screencaps do not show any other visible options or choosing between the two models seems to reinforce their story, though this is for selecting what phone is on your account, not ordering so the capacity may not matter. There’s also the fact that the 16GB has been available for months, which seems to indicate that the codename “iPhone Black” would have to have been “re-assigned“ in the system well before now.

If AT&T’s recent slip-ups regarding free Wi-Fi for iPhones tells us anything about how good they are at keeping a secret, it’s that we wouldn’t recommend telling anyone over there who you have a crush on. Oh, and that there’s probably going to be a black iPhone soon.

Why an iPhone shortage is good news for Cupertino

Conventional wisdom would tell us that a company new to a particular market (cell phones, for example) would endanger the growth of its market share if it were to sell out of the product it manufactures for that market. So why is Apple smiling?

Apple has a well-earned reputation for completely disregarding conventional wisdom and this iPhone sell-out may be a smart (and intentional) move that continues that tradition. Why would Apple want to sell out of a product that’s selling like hot-cakes? It’s simple, really.

For most manufacturers, in most markets, if their product is not available for customers to buy when they want it, they’ll just buy a similar product instead. But none of those products are the iPhone. Apple knows that the majority of people going to plunk down $400-$500 on an iPhone aren’t going to be deterred by the sold-out status to the point that they go buy a blackberry instead. Instead, they’ll wait. Apple isn’t losing iPhone sales; they’re deferring iPhone sales. And, in all likelihood, saving a lot of money doing so.

We all know there’s a new iPhone coming out, with long-awaited 3G, 3rd-party applications and enterprise support, plus many other features that have been the subjects of hot speculation. Apple is much better off not selling iPhones at all in the lead-up to that launch, especially in the two weeks immediately preceding. After all, they have a 14 day return policy. It’s safe to say that 90% of buyers in the two weeks prior to the 3G iPhone launch would be returning those units for exchange, costing Apple thousands of work-hours processing exchanges and leaving them with a giant pile of expensive iPhones that no one wants and losing the manufacturing costs for all of them.

Selling out, however, not only avoids that problem but has some other benefits as well. It causes that elusive thing called “buzz.” Apple knows that the iPhone suddenly becoming unavailable creates news stories. News stories that imply to the people who haven’t yet chosen the iPhone that they’re obviously missing out on something -- how often do you hear of a cellphone selling out? And, just in case they hadn’t heard, those news stories speculate that the shortage may be due to an upcoming 3G version, saving Apple millions in advertising costs.

That is why Apple is smiling.

Blue Jay Way

I have decided to post a story I wrote back in 2002. Enjoy:

When the sun first crested the horizon and spilled its thick morning light over my part of the Earth, I woke to find a book on my lap and the blanket I was wrapped in damp with the morning dew. The upside to falling asleep reading on the porch is that you wake to a sunrise that is only matched in mid-fifties Technicolor. It’s even worth the backache you carry with you for the rest of the day.

Searching the mysteriously deep folds that develop in a blanket when you sleep, I located my cigarettes and lit one, thankful of the plastic wrap that some genius decided to put on the pack in case some schmuck should ever fall asleep and wake to find himself covered in morning dew. That first drag is heaven. My nicotine breakfast. After that one, the rest is usually left to burn down on its own. I hold it anyway; it’s a comfort.
Pulling my blanket tighter around myself, I remember taking a minute just to look around and enjoy the view. At that time I lived in North Carolina and it was early August, absolutely the most beautiful time of year there, though some may disagree. Overhead, squirrels chased one-another through the branches of an oak tree, the smallest tinges of orange and yellow and red showing at the edges of its leaves. One of the squirrels dropped suddenly from a high branch, bounced off of the corner gutter of my house and caught hold of the end of a branch less than ten feet from the ground like a little furry ninja. It was so absurd as to make me laugh out loud. Then I saw the cause of the little ninja’s fall. A blue jay had apparently dive-bombed it, perhaps hoping to relieve it of some tasty nut. Three more blue jays swooped down over the next minute or so and, chasing one another through the branches, added some color to the mini Cirque Du Soliel going on in my oak tree.
As I watched them flutter and fly through the tree in what appeared to be a playful game of tag (though was probably closer to a gangland turf-war)<i> Blue Jay Way</i> by the Beatles rose to the front of my mind and I began whistling it. I’ve never been a very good whistler, so whistling to myself doesn’t happen. That is to say, I can whistle well, but only with a good amount of wind. I’m one of those whistlers that are constantly being shushed by their friends. I continued watching them, whistling all the while, but their play didn’t go on very long. Less than a minute into my high-pitched rendition of<i> Blue Jay Way</i>, the birds alit on a branch and each cocked their head, as if listening to something. The song continued playing in my head and so I kept whistling along, hearing the words and music alike on the turntable of my mind. The birds, one at a time, hopped/flew to a branch slightly closer to me, cocking their heads in some weird bird-parody of Christopher Walken once again upon landing. After only a couple of seconds, they flew, nearly all at once, to the railing on my porch, not two feet from my head. They cocked their heads once again and listened. And they watched. When I caught on that their heads were turning, each of them, to look at me first with one eye, then with the other and back again, I stopped whistling.

All at once the blue jays found something else of great interest in their immediate vicinity. As an experiment, I began whistling Frank Sinatra’s <i>Fly Me To The Moon.</i> Two of the birds flew off, offended that a human was in such close proximity to them. The other two stayed but by the time I’d gotten to the last chorus, they showed no interest in my whistling any longer. I stopped. I smoked the last bit of my cigarette, only my second drag of the day. I began whistling again. <i> Blue Jay Way</i> once more. The two on the rail immediately stopped what they were doing, one of them dropping a bug from his beak. I had no idea that “entranced” was a word that I would ever apply to a bird but there it was. The other two came back and they brought a friend.

I began to think that this was quite interesting. Theories started running through my mind. Things to do with harmonics and pitch and their effect on certain animals, remembering that dogs can hear certain frequencies that humans can’t and wondering if perhaps certain kinds of birds have different reactions to a variety of different tones. Then they started whistling. Not the short chirp/squawk that is normally associated with the blue jay. It was the song. All at once they started and in perfect harmony. The blue jays were singing<i> Blue Jay Way.</i>

With a final shocked squeak, I stopped whistling.

They continued. Others came and joined them. They sang parts that I hadn’t even remembered. With the birds singing, the Beatles, by comparison, had all the harmony of a first-grade chorus. Still more blue jays joined in, flying into my great oak tree, now remarkably bereft of squirrels. It wasn’t long until the tree was thick with blue jays, each singing the same song, the same verse, the same note.

I’ve always thought the Beatles song had a remorseful feel to it. The birds, on the other hand, were that remorse given flesh. Flesh and perfect pitch. After nearly fifteen minutes of their musical weeping, the birds stopped. They stopped and didn’t move. They seemed to be waiting for something.

“Well, go on,” I said, unsure if I meant that they should leave or that they should continue singing. They did the former, flying off forlornly, it seemed, one at a time.

All that day I thought of that strange phenomenon. Was it, I rationed, a natural melody that perhaps blue jays sing during a certain time of year or for mating purposes? Something that the Beatles heard and made into a song? That would be an interesting piece of trivia to know. That was really the most viable explanation I could come up with. It took almost four hours before I came up with that rationalization. Later on, when I went downtown for some coffee, I saw the paper.

<center><b>“Former Beatle George Harrison, 58, dies.”</b></center>

I bought the paper and read the article. It contained the expected account of his time with the Beatles, his solo career and certain facts about his search for spiritualism. It also listed some of his better-known achievements. Among them, it said, were several songs he had written, including <i>Something</i>,<i> While My Guitar Gently Weeps</i> and… <i>Blue Jay Way</i>.

After that, I gave up on my theories of the phenomenon that I witnessed that morning. I didn’t want it explained, even if it could be. As far as I was concerned, a man had made a contribution to the spirit of the world and the world, nature itself, had mourned him. I can only hope that I somehow earn even half as good a eulogy.

Committed...to writing.

I find that I am remarkably focused after a good blog post. Of course, I don’t blog very often, so that may have something to do with it. I just think that if someone is going to take the time to read what I write, it shouldn’t be pointless minutiae. “I’m excited that xxxxxx the Movie is coming out!” or “I saw a funny dog in the parking lot of the grocery store” is all well and good. In fact, I often get a lot of enjoyment from reading such blog posts. I just have a desire to deliver something a little....more, for lack of a better term.

So, as it happens, my blogging tends to come when there’s something I really need to say, or feel that people should hear. Things that are important to me. Thus, I approach my writing encumbered from the start, so that every experience is glorious catharsis, resulting in a clearer mind afterwards. Thus: focused. I really need to get over that. Which isn’t to say that I’m going to burden the internet with my daily happenings. I find thoughts so much more interesting to write than happenings.

One thing that has held me back many times is having the feeling that I should write on a particular subject, only to find that a million people have already written on the subject so eloquently. Not universal themes, mind you, but current events, politics, things like that. Because, let’s face it, there are a lot of really talented bloggers on this series of tubes we call the internet. Well, screw ‘em.

You hear me, random anonymous bloggers? You’ve got one more competitor, in a sea of a billion.

I don’t know what I want to do here though. I have several varied interests... Apple stuff, Atheism, Politics... and, while I will have different things to say on different subjects on different days, I really want my writing to be read. And the best way to do that is to have a focused blog, something that sticks to a single general topic. Looking over what I’m passionate about, that isn’t covered-to-death everywhere else, I’ve decided that I really need to write about atheism. All the other random stuff I’ll still be posting here, but I’ve started a new blog at resurrectingreason.blogspot.com for my DAILY atheist writings. Yes, daily. For those of you reading this who have seen me make similar claims before: shut up.

My heart is broken...

I have a long-time love affair with the Clintons, going all the way back to ‘92, when I would write “Vote Clinton/Gore ‘92!” across the top of all my eighth-grade school papers. Of course, being in Middle School, I had no real political identity and, looking back, I have no clue why I was so pro-Clinton. I wasn’t even picking up on parental preferences because, if my mother had any stance on the subject, I was ignorant of it.

Spending my most formative years in the Clinton era, I was afforded the luxury of staying un-involved in politics. After all; we were at peace, the economy was at its all-time best, the USA had good relationships with nations around the world and we weren’t being scared by the ever-present threat of a national boogeyman -- a brief reprieve between the communist threat and the terrorist threat.

The GOP constantly derided the Clintons, of course. Bill and Hillary were evil. They would do anything to win. 6 of the 8 years Bill was president, the GOP controlled the House and the Senate and did their level best to oppose him at every turn. But he was charismatic and likable, despite his personal failings. Hillary, as well, was the subject of frequent vicious attacks by the Right, especially when she took on the Healthcare industry. And I never understood any of that hatred. Things were going well. So what was not to like?

Of course, when George W. Bush became the Republican nominee in 2000, there was no room left for political apathy in my life. And, as we all know, his assumption of power didn’t take long to reverse all the good that Clinton had done.

Of course, 2000 wasn’t all bad. It also saw the first time a former First Lady would be elected to the Senate...signaling to anyone paying attention that this would be a stepping-stone with the end goal going back to the White House. The thought of Hillary Clinton becoming president is one that, since winning her Senate seat, I have been very vocally in favor of, especially as the current administration continued to make the country (and the world) progressively worse and worse.

So, as I’m sure you can imagine, I was thrilled when she announced her candidacy last year. Of course, I also grew to like Barack Obama as I learned more about him. My favorite candidate, however, was neither Hillary nor Obama but Dennis Kucinich. Of course, I had no illusions of Kucinich’s chances: I knew Hillary would be our next president and I was thrilled with it.

And now, on to my broken heart.

As I watched more and more of the debates and the frontrunners started to emerge as Hillary (or course), John Edwards and Obama, I was sort of on the fence between Obama and Clinton. I really liked Obama’s message and policy positions, but I also liked Hillary and clung to my long-time hope to see her elected our first woman president. (Though I agree with John Edwards on policy, I have to admit to a shallow reason for not having a strong desire to see him in the White House: 20 straight years of southern-accented presidents is more than enough, thank you).

Eventually, as the primaries got under way, Kucinich endorsed Obama (before even dropping out of the race) and the support of my favorite candidate was the last little bit that was needed to tip my support fully into the Obama camp. Of course, that’s not to say that I wouldn’t support my beloved Hillary should she win the Nomination.

And then there were two. Hillary and Obama have been neck-and-neck ever since they emerged as the last two candidates for the Democratic nomination. I continued my support for Obama (and, prior to finding out that he doesn’t believe in evolution, I was also a fan of Ron Paul on the Republican side), but maintained the feeling that we couldn’t lose, whichever candidate won the nomination.

Then it happened. Hillary Clinton became what the GOP had accused her of being all these years: a power-hungry, self-serving, master politician who would do anything to win.

It started small: She was slow to speak out against false rumors about Obama’s religion and the implications of his middle name (Hussein). She did speak out, of course, but she took a few days to do so. A few more days for the rumors to circulate. And when she did say that Obama was not a Muslim, she added: “Not that I know of.”

Then came the “Shame on You” speech, where she publicly chided Obama for his “dirty“ tactic of fairly and accurately quoting Sen. Clinton’s own book in which she speaks favorably of NAFTA, which she favored as the First Lady and as a Senator, but began criticizing publicly when she entered the race for the presidency. Oh, yes. How dare he bring to the public’s attention the matters of record that indicate that your strong words against NAFTA might be little more that rhetoric? Shameful, indeed.

Around this same time, a picture began circulating of Obama on a visit to an African nation, in which he wore the customary garb of its people (something that all politicians do), including a turban-like headdress. Circulating without the proper context, this fed into the public’s perception of Sen. Obama as a Muslim. There were rumors that it was the Clinton campaign that started circulating the picture. Sen. Clinton denies this and I, like Obama, take her at her word. But it bears mentioning nonetheless.

Then she seemed to get a little desperate, complaining to Brian Williams that she always has to answer the questions first in the debates and even cited an SNL sketch from the previous Saturday and mentioned that they should maybe ask Sen. Obama if he’d like another pillow. That has to mark the first time that a politician has ever cited unfavorable treatment in an SNL sketch as a sign of media bias.

Then things started getting really bad. Hillary began speaking out against Obama’s message of Hope, despite the fact that it was a big theme in her husband’s ‘92 campaign. Not to mention that it also reflected the comments of the Republican candidates, who had by this point switched the focus of their attacks toward Obama as it became more and more likely that he was going to win the nomination.

Then it became about ”experience,“ which Sen. Clinton feels she has more of than does Sen. Obama. This in spite of the fact that, while she was in the White House in the honorary and unelected role of First Lady with no security clearance or official government duties, Obama was already working as a legislator, in an elected government position, as an Illinois State Senator. And despite the fact that he has more foreign policy experience than Reagan, Bush or Clinton had upon their respective entries into the Oval Office.

Through all this, I began to feel more and more disappointed in the tactics that Sen. Clinton was partaking in.

Then she crossed the line.

It is one thing to say that you have more experience that your opponent. It s entirely another to do what Sen. Clinton did next: She stated that both she AND the Republican Nominee both had the experience necessary to be president, while Obama had nothing to offer but a speech he gave in 2002. Yes, she publicly insinuated that the opposition party’s Pro-War candidate would be a better choice for president than the current Democratic front-runner.

Worse still, this was not an unfortunate slip. On three more occasions, at three more venues, she reasserted this viewpoint. Her campaign states that this is their way of gearing up to combat John McCain in the general election. Which, to me, begs the question: how does repeatedly stating your opponent’s qualifications to do the job you’re competing for help you to defeat them? Clearly, Mrs. Clinton is attempting to weaken Sen. Obama’s lead as the primaries continue, while simultaneously (and intentionally) giving McCain ammo with which to combat Obama should he become the Democratic nominee. This may sound short-sighted, but remember that Hillary Clinton is anything but short-sighted. She knows that if a Democrat other than her wins the White House this year, she won’t have another opportunity to run for 8 years. If McCain wins, however, she can run again in 4 years. In short, Hillary Clinton would rather see the Bush doctrine continue for four more years than wait an additional 4 years to take power.

Since then, Hillary has kicked her campaign into full-fledged Rove-mode. Her infamous 3am ad plays on our fears of terrorist attack, just like the Bush administration has been doing since 9/11 to keep us cowed and compliant as he erodes our liberties and increases his power, unchecked.

Yes, Hillary Clinton has broken my heart more than I thought any woman ever could. She has destroyed completely a faith that I have held in her for over half my life. In all likelihood, Sen. Obama will still be the Democratic nominee, but if these tactics should push Hillary into that spot, I have made the heart-rending decision that I cannot support her. I am a registered Democrat, but I am not a party-line voter. I have always voted my heart. And my heart tells me that Hillary Clinton is not who I thought she was. She has proven herself, to me, unfit to lead this nation. Should she emerge as the nominee, then I will have to vote my conscience: I will have no choice but to vote either for a third party candidate or to write-in Sen. Obama.

It is a hard decision, one that it does honestly pain me very much to have to make, but there you have it. My faith in Hillary is dead, killed by her own actions against the ideals she claims to stand for, against her party and against the nation.