I suppose that I could wait until next month and actually make it a month, but that isn't the point. I have been neglectful of this blog. Now, I could claim that I have been sick, and that is true, but again....well, it is sort of beside the point. I haven't been so sick that I could not have taken a few minutes to post something. I just haven't. In fact, I have a number of things already written that would require little more than a quick rewrite before posting, but I just didn't.
Soon, I will have some thoughts on Android. Recently, I had the opportunity to play with an Android phone for an extended period. It is a little like about 18 months ago, when I got my first chance to play with Windows Phone 7. I have an Android Phone, but at the moment, it isn't a phone, at least it isn't activated for service on a carrier. In fact, it is my wife's old Android phone. It was giving her problems, so she went out and got a more reliable one, and I have the old one to play with. I will save my comments for another time.
I really have been sick, and I am getting really tired of it. I spent most of a week coughing, and now my voice is gone, which makes it really hard to do your job when your job is answering phones. Fortunately, I have some great people at my job and they covered for me for a couple of days. And also fortunately, those couple of days led directly into a long weekend, when I hope my voice will recover. And again fortunately, that will lead into the week when I am going out of town, and talking on the phone will not be required. So maybe I'll survive.
I am also committed to getting back to my writing and getting both of my blogs updated on a more regular basis.
Friday, March 2, 2012
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Unbiased Tablet Usage Survey
Examine the Two Schools of Thought for Tablet Computing
The article above is from a Tech Republic Blog called Tablets in the Enterprise.
I'd like to see a real study, a good one, not one run by Apple, or Google or anyone else connected with the industry. I would like to see a study to determine how, or even if all those people really use their iPads. I have read reports that suggest that a lot of iPads sold in Britain are not even being used. I would like to know how many iPad users consider their iPad a waste of money.
I single out the iPad, because Android tablets don't have the same cool factor as the iPad. Apple produces good products, and I would not want to discount that as a factor in their success, but I think there is another factor in Apple's success that not many people think of.
Apple has developed cachet. iPhones and iPads are cool, and having one is seen as giving a certain amount of cool. This is why a lot of Apple advertising isn't about the product at all, but about how cool it would be to own one. If you couple that type of advertising with something that doesn't suck, you have a winner. Once again, I am not trying to say that Apple products aren't good, but people aren't buying them because they are good, they are buying them because they are cool, and after buying them, they find they don't suck, they aren't an annoyance. Maybe they aren't perfect, though some think they are, but they are good, and when you combine that with cool factor, you have a run away hit.
But, how many people really use them. I know some of the readers of Tech Republic will probably reply that they use theirs a lot, and several of the writers have already done that, but that is not a significant statistical cross section. Both readers and writers at Tech Republic are more likely, by their very nature, to be among those who embrace new technology.
How many of the grandmas we heard about early on still use their iPads? How many people actually replaced their laptop with an iPad and don't regret it at all? How many iPads sit in a corner gathering dust?
I have singled out the iPad because, IMO, persons who choose Android tablets are more likely to have really looked at what they would use a tablet for, before they bought one. Lots of iPad owners did too, and they are probably still using their iPads, but a lot of people bought iPads because they were the cool new gadget, and it is my guess, and only a guess, that a lot of those millions of purchasers found that an iPad doesn't really do what they want, or simply found that they don't need an iPad.
I would like the study done across the whole tablet market, but I would like it broken out into iOS, Android and Windows....and convertibles don't count as tablets....well, I might like to have them included, but with the first question for convertible owners being....
What percentage of the time do you use your convertible like a tablet (keyboard unavailable) and what percentage in standard laptop configuration?
So, where is the unbiased survey of tablet usage?
The article above is from a Tech Republic Blog called Tablets in the Enterprise.
I'd like to see a real study, a good one, not one run by Apple, or Google or anyone else connected with the industry. I would like to see a study to determine how, or even if all those people really use their iPads. I have read reports that suggest that a lot of iPads sold in Britain are not even being used. I would like to know how many iPad users consider their iPad a waste of money.
I single out the iPad, because Android tablets don't have the same cool factor as the iPad. Apple produces good products, and I would not want to discount that as a factor in their success, but I think there is another factor in Apple's success that not many people think of.
Apple has developed cachet. iPhones and iPads are cool, and having one is seen as giving a certain amount of cool. This is why a lot of Apple advertising isn't about the product at all, but about how cool it would be to own one. If you couple that type of advertising with something that doesn't suck, you have a winner. Once again, I am not trying to say that Apple products aren't good, but people aren't buying them because they are good, they are buying them because they are cool, and after buying them, they find they don't suck, they aren't an annoyance. Maybe they aren't perfect, though some think they are, but they are good, and when you combine that with cool factor, you have a run away hit.
But, how many people really use them. I know some of the readers of Tech Republic will probably reply that they use theirs a lot, and several of the writers have already done that, but that is not a significant statistical cross section. Both readers and writers at Tech Republic are more likely, by their very nature, to be among those who embrace new technology.
How many of the grandmas we heard about early on still use their iPads? How many people actually replaced their laptop with an iPad and don't regret it at all? How many iPads sit in a corner gathering dust?
I have singled out the iPad because, IMO, persons who choose Android tablets are more likely to have really looked at what they would use a tablet for, before they bought one. Lots of iPad owners did too, and they are probably still using their iPads, but a lot of people bought iPads because they were the cool new gadget, and it is my guess, and only a guess, that a lot of those millions of purchasers found that an iPad doesn't really do what they want, or simply found that they don't need an iPad.
I would like the study done across the whole tablet market, but I would like it broken out into iOS, Android and Windows....and convertibles don't count as tablets....well, I might like to have them included, but with the first question for convertible owners being....
What percentage of the time do you use your convertible like a tablet (keyboard unavailable) and what percentage in standard laptop configuration?
So, where is the unbiased survey of tablet usage?
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Wanted: Motivation
If you are expecting a post about New Years Resolutions and starting a new year and turning over a leaf....well, fugettaboutit.
I am starting off this new year with a total lack of motivation. As if that wasn't obvious from the brilliance and volume of my posts. This wasn't my first choice for how I wanted to start the year, but there you are. I just cannot seem to get excited about anything. I was in a bit of a funk before Christmas, and now, after New Years...I still got it. I'm tired, and what's usually important is what I am tired off, but right now, I am tired of...everything.
So, here's to the New Year.....whoopie....
I'm gonna go take a nap.
I am starting off this new year with a total lack of motivation. As if that wasn't obvious from the brilliance and volume of my posts. This wasn't my first choice for how I wanted to start the year, but there you are. I just cannot seem to get excited about anything. I was in a bit of a funk before Christmas, and now, after New Years...I still got it. I'm tired, and what's usually important is what I am tired off, but right now, I am tired of...everything.
So, here's to the New Year.....whoopie....
I'm gonna go take a nap.
Monday, January 9, 2012
Skyrim
Before getting into what I think of Skyrim, I think you should have a little of my history with The Elder Scrolls series.
I first discovered The Elder Scrolls with volume 3, Morrowind. A friend loaned me a copy after learning how much I liked Neverwinter Nights. In many ways, I would say that Morrowind is my favorite game of all time. Only Mass Effect has come close for me.
I played Morrowind until my character was level 80. I had done pretty much everything. I beat the main quest and continued on. I played so long that I was running out of things to do. I finally decided to try one of the vampire lairs. I had avoided them to that point because of the warnings in a couple of player guides. I walked in, and none of the vampires were even a challenge. That is when I stopped playing Morrowind.
When The Elder Scrolls 4, Oblivion came out I bought a copy the first week. Then, a couple of weeks later I built myself a new system, because the old one didn't play it well enough. I was hooked at the moment when the game intro finished and the music swelled up. It was a moment that gives you goose pimples. In Oblivion I went through each of the four major side quest lines, but for a long time I didn't bother with finishing the main quest. I figured out how to be virtually invisible, and that made a lot of things way too easy, though they were still fun.
When Bethesda announced that Oblivion would be the last segment of The Elder Scrolls, I was heart broken. It was like having an old friend die before you got to see him one more time.
I don't know when Bethesda changed their minds, but eventually, there was Skyrim, and I looked forward to it. Money was tight, so I didn't get it the first week, and I don't have the money to buy a new PC, even though I need one, but I finally got the game.
First, I have to admit that I am not playing on the highest video settings, so that might be coloring my judgment a little. The Elder Scrolls has been, at least for three versions, a game that draws you into the game world. It makes the game seem real, to the point where the sound of a cold breeze and a snowy landscape will send a shiver through you and have you looking for a blanket to throw over your shoulders.
Also, Skyrim is the frozen north part of Tamriel, the continent and empire that has been the been the setting for all The Elder Scrolls games. It is populated by Nords, who are in a word...Nordic. But the problem that I am leading to is that the game seems a bit grey, almost monotone. There isn't a lot of color. There are a few bright flowers, but small ones, and a few green trees, but they seem faded somehow. All the people dress in subdued colors, which might be part of the belief that no one wore bright colors in the past, which we know to be false.
The only other problem I have seen with Skyrim is that isn't quite grabbing me the way Morrowind and Oblivion did. I am enjoying it, but I don't feel as involved. I am not sure I can adequately describe it.
The leveling system is still better than anything else. You level by improving skills, and many of the skills can only be improved by really using them. They have eliminated a few of the more exploited skills from Oblivion, which makes leveling a little more difficult, though admitted not much.
The world is huge. I have been playing for about two weeks now, and I haven't explored more than a quarter of it. I have reached the end of two of the major side quest lines, Assassins and Thieves, and still have two go to, as well as having about half of the main quest line to finish. There are still many side quests, there are ones in each of the major cities and several of the smaller ones to do, and much much more.
But, I am beginning to feel that this series has run out its time. There is too little that's new. Yes, there's dragons, but your only interaction with them, is killing them. They attack somewhere near you, and you kill it. I haven't reached the point where I learn why they are back, and maybe that will change things, but I have not going to hold my breath.
I'd give it 7.5 out of ten. It's better than Fallout 3, which isn't too surprising, though they borrowed a numbers of things from Fallout 3. Of course, then again, Fallout 3 had the same greyness problem. It's worth checking out, but don't expect too much. If you liked Oblivion or Morrowind, you'll like it.
I first discovered The Elder Scrolls with volume 3, Morrowind. A friend loaned me a copy after learning how much I liked Neverwinter Nights. In many ways, I would say that Morrowind is my favorite game of all time. Only Mass Effect has come close for me.
I played Morrowind until my character was level 80. I had done pretty much everything. I beat the main quest and continued on. I played so long that I was running out of things to do. I finally decided to try one of the vampire lairs. I had avoided them to that point because of the warnings in a couple of player guides. I walked in, and none of the vampires were even a challenge. That is when I stopped playing Morrowind.
When The Elder Scrolls 4, Oblivion came out I bought a copy the first week. Then, a couple of weeks later I built myself a new system, because the old one didn't play it well enough. I was hooked at the moment when the game intro finished and the music swelled up. It was a moment that gives you goose pimples. In Oblivion I went through each of the four major side quest lines, but for a long time I didn't bother with finishing the main quest. I figured out how to be virtually invisible, and that made a lot of things way too easy, though they were still fun.
When Bethesda announced that Oblivion would be the last segment of The Elder Scrolls, I was heart broken. It was like having an old friend die before you got to see him one more time.
I don't know when Bethesda changed their minds, but eventually, there was Skyrim, and I looked forward to it. Money was tight, so I didn't get it the first week, and I don't have the money to buy a new PC, even though I need one, but I finally got the game.
First, I have to admit that I am not playing on the highest video settings, so that might be coloring my judgment a little. The Elder Scrolls has been, at least for three versions, a game that draws you into the game world. It makes the game seem real, to the point where the sound of a cold breeze and a snowy landscape will send a shiver through you and have you looking for a blanket to throw over your shoulders.
Also, Skyrim is the frozen north part of Tamriel, the continent and empire that has been the been the setting for all The Elder Scrolls games. It is populated by Nords, who are in a word...Nordic. But the problem that I am leading to is that the game seems a bit grey, almost monotone. There isn't a lot of color. There are a few bright flowers, but small ones, and a few green trees, but they seem faded somehow. All the people dress in subdued colors, which might be part of the belief that no one wore bright colors in the past, which we know to be false.
The only other problem I have seen with Skyrim is that isn't quite grabbing me the way Morrowind and Oblivion did. I am enjoying it, but I don't feel as involved. I am not sure I can adequately describe it.
The leveling system is still better than anything else. You level by improving skills, and many of the skills can only be improved by really using them. They have eliminated a few of the more exploited skills from Oblivion, which makes leveling a little more difficult, though admitted not much.
The world is huge. I have been playing for about two weeks now, and I haven't explored more than a quarter of it. I have reached the end of two of the major side quest lines, Assassins and Thieves, and still have two go to, as well as having about half of the main quest line to finish. There are still many side quests, there are ones in each of the major cities and several of the smaller ones to do, and much much more.
But, I am beginning to feel that this series has run out its time. There is too little that's new. Yes, there's dragons, but your only interaction with them, is killing them. They attack somewhere near you, and you kill it. I haven't reached the point where I learn why they are back, and maybe that will change things, but I have not going to hold my breath.
I'd give it 7.5 out of ten. It's better than Fallout 3, which isn't too surprising, though they borrowed a numbers of things from Fallout 3. Of course, then again, Fallout 3 had the same greyness problem. It's worth checking out, but don't expect too much. If you liked Oblivion or Morrowind, you'll like it.
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Back from Break
I didn't really mean to take a break, but I got a little depressed and stopped writing much. It really is too bad that I didn't get out here, because I have several blog posts most written and just in need of a little cleaning up before posting.
I have posted on my food blog, Hold the Onions, so check it out.
This isn't the first time that I have gotten into a bit of funk and quite writing, though I say that, and then think of the fact that I have done some writing, just not the sort that I post on my blog. I have written lots of comments to articles on Gizmodo and TechRepublic. I have written background for some stories I want to write. So, it has not been an entirely dry writing spell, but I haven't really even kept up with my journal, which I have now been keeping for more than 35 years.
But, I'm back now, and I intend to post here a bit more often....though I think it will continue to only be about once a week.
So, stay tuned.
I have posted on my food blog, Hold the Onions, so check it out.
This isn't the first time that I have gotten into a bit of funk and quite writing, though I say that, and then think of the fact that I have done some writing, just not the sort that I post on my blog. I have written lots of comments to articles on Gizmodo and TechRepublic. I have written background for some stories I want to write. So, it has not been an entirely dry writing spell, but I haven't really even kept up with my journal, which I have now been keeping for more than 35 years.
But, I'm back now, and I intend to post here a bit more often....though I think it will continue to only be about once a week.
So, stay tuned.
Friday, November 11, 2011
Mango Tablets, yum yum
I started off writing a post about how I wanted Windows Phone 7 on a tablet, then today I saw this.
Microsoft: Where's your $199 Windows Tablet?
I spent many months last year on the Windows Phone 7 Backstage Forum. It was created by MS shortly after they announced WP7 back in February 2010 and became largely irrelevant after the release in November.
One of the things we discussed was the possibility of putting Windows Phone 7 on tablets. This led, especially after the introduction of the iPad, to a differentiation between a tablet, which ran a smartphone style OS, and a slate, which ran a desktop level OS.
From the moment I saw the first videos of WP7, I became excited about the idea of Windows Tablet 7 (my own name). Metro on a tablet seemed like such an obvious idea that I was actually surprised when MS announced that there would no such thing.
I agree that MS is missing a trick right now. Many of the cheaper 7" tablets are 800x480, which means that Mango could run on them without alteration. Simply remove the phone icon from the start screen and you are all set to go.
I am excited about Windows 8 on tablets, but what I really want on a tablet is the simplicity of the way that Mango handles Office and email. I neither want nor need a full Office suite on a tablet. I love the fact that my contacts come in immediately from Windows Live when I start up my phone and I really don't want to have to park a full version of Office on my tablet to get the same email and office experience that I get on my phone.
By restricting the Mango tablet to 800x480 for now, and expanding it later when they expand the resolution for smartphones, I think they would have some tremendous traction against the iPad in the consumer market. Later, Windows 8 comes out and blows all the large tablets right out of the water in the business sector.
Microsoft has managed to be a very usable app ecosystem for WP7 in a very short time. I know they can do it again, but by the middle of next year, the iPad, Kindle Fire, and Nook Tablet, not to mention all the other Android Tablets, are going to have a huge lead, and fighting an uphill battle in two different mobile markets may be very tough.
I think Microsoft could gain significant $$ rewards in the short term, and when Windows 8 comes out, these people will already be well entrenched in a Microsoft ecosystem.
Microsoft: Where's your $199 Windows Tablet?
I spent many months last year on the Windows Phone 7 Backstage Forum. It was created by MS shortly after they announced WP7 back in February 2010 and became largely irrelevant after the release in November.
One of the things we discussed was the possibility of putting Windows Phone 7 on tablets. This led, especially after the introduction of the iPad, to a differentiation between a tablet, which ran a smartphone style OS, and a slate, which ran a desktop level OS.
From the moment I saw the first videos of WP7, I became excited about the idea of Windows Tablet 7 (my own name). Metro on a tablet seemed like such an obvious idea that I was actually surprised when MS announced that there would no such thing.
I agree that MS is missing a trick right now. Many of the cheaper 7" tablets are 800x480, which means that Mango could run on them without alteration. Simply remove the phone icon from the start screen and you are all set to go.
I am excited about Windows 8 on tablets, but what I really want on a tablet is the simplicity of the way that Mango handles Office and email. I neither want nor need a full Office suite on a tablet. I love the fact that my contacts come in immediately from Windows Live when I start up my phone and I really don't want to have to park a full version of Office on my tablet to get the same email and office experience that I get on my phone.
By restricting the Mango tablet to 800x480 for now, and expanding it later when they expand the resolution for smartphones, I think they would have some tremendous traction against the iPad in the consumer market. Later, Windows 8 comes out and blows all the large tablets right out of the water in the business sector.
Microsoft has managed to be a very usable app ecosystem for WP7 in a very short time. I know they can do it again, but by the middle of next year, the iPad, Kindle Fire, and Nook Tablet, not to mention all the other Android Tablets, are going to have a huge lead, and fighting an uphill battle in two different mobile markets may be very tough.
I think Microsoft could gain significant $$ rewards in the short term, and when Windows 8 comes out, these people will already be well entrenched in a Microsoft ecosystem.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Gamers...no matter the game
Many of my thought experiments start with something presented by someone else. This time it was on Kotaku, a gaming blog site.
The Hardcore Gaming Myth
I find the biggest difference in gamers...as opposed to games...is in the goals behind why you play, and it doesn't really matter what the game is. I have seen it myself, both in a Martial Art I participate in, and in an online game I played for several years. I had a friend describe it to me in a cycling club that he was part of.
Humans are competitive, and it is natural for us to turn almost any endeavor into a competition, but not all people are driven to compete. So, here you have the difference, what is the goal or participation? Do you play to win, or do you play to enjoy yourself? The problem arises when people with these two different goals intermingle in the same environment.
In my friend's cycling club, he encountered both types. Some of the members were racers or at least wannabe racers, and others were there for the love of cycling, and had no wish to compete. The problem that my friend saw was that the intensity of the competitive cyclists tended to be a big turn off for new enjoyment cyclists. Literally, it scared them off, because they just wanted to get out occasionally and ride, while the competitive cyclists wanted everyone to agree to ride several times a week, and long rides, and try for certain time goals.
This discussion came up because of my participation in Armored Combat in the Society for Creative Anachronism (SCA). My friend was also in the SCA (still is, as a matter of fact). At that time, we had a small group of very competitive, very driven fighters, and we were trying to find more opponents. Having different people to fight not only makes the practice more enjoyable, but it also helps in not developing bad habits. The intensity with which we fought could have the effect of driving off new fighters, at least that was my friend's contention, and after a time, I came to see his point.
Now, in neither of these examples, nor others that could be provided should it be assumed that those who play to win don't enjoy themselves, nor, that those who play for fun don't like to win. What would be more correct is to say that who play to win don't enjoy themselves as much if they aren't competing and those who play for fun don't have to win to have fun. Both agree that winning is more fun than losing.
I primarily play RPGs. I very much like playing out the storylines, and exploring the character choices. I spent many years playing Neverwinter Nights (NWN) on Persistent Worlds (PWs). While there, I found a distinct dichotomy among the players. Casual and Hardcore isn't really adequate to this situation, because it was all people who were spending 5-20 hours a week playing, and generally in blocks of at least a couple of hours at a time.
One term used negatively for one camp was Powergamers. These players were definitely hardcore about the game, they spent time studying various character builds in order to learn how to make the strongest builds. They could tell you exactly what they were going to do with the build from the first time they played. They reveled in player-versus-player confrontations.
The other camp preferred the Role-Playing aspects of the game. They preferred to let the story that their character played out to influence (possibly even control) their character build. Often, these players did not seek player-versus-player confrontations.
Now, it isn't that the Powergamers were unwilling to role-play, in fact many of them were quite excellent at the role-play elements of the game, but their characters had to be very powerful, and they used that to push other players around from time to time, all the while claiming that this was the appropriate role-play for that character.
They were competition/goal/victory oriented in their gaming, while the second group was not.
The author brought up basketball. Ever participated in pick-up games, and run across someone who only cared about making the perfect shot? They weren't driven to win. To them it was almost like performance art, and as long as they made that perfect shot, they didn't really care who won or lost.
Some people need to win to have, others don't, participation, the action, not the result is the goal. To me that is the fundamental difference between gamers, whether the game is basketball, golf, or computer games.
The Hardcore Gaming Myth
I find the biggest difference in gamers...as opposed to games...is in the goals behind why you play, and it doesn't really matter what the game is. I have seen it myself, both in a Martial Art I participate in, and in an online game I played for several years. I had a friend describe it to me in a cycling club that he was part of.
Humans are competitive, and it is natural for us to turn almost any endeavor into a competition, but not all people are driven to compete. So, here you have the difference, what is the goal or participation? Do you play to win, or do you play to enjoy yourself? The problem arises when people with these two different goals intermingle in the same environment.
In my friend's cycling club, he encountered both types. Some of the members were racers or at least wannabe racers, and others were there for the love of cycling, and had no wish to compete. The problem that my friend saw was that the intensity of the competitive cyclists tended to be a big turn off for new enjoyment cyclists. Literally, it scared them off, because they just wanted to get out occasionally and ride, while the competitive cyclists wanted everyone to agree to ride several times a week, and long rides, and try for certain time goals.
This discussion came up because of my participation in Armored Combat in the Society for Creative Anachronism (SCA). My friend was also in the SCA (still is, as a matter of fact). At that time, we had a small group of very competitive, very driven fighters, and we were trying to find more opponents. Having different people to fight not only makes the practice more enjoyable, but it also helps in not developing bad habits. The intensity with which we fought could have the effect of driving off new fighters, at least that was my friend's contention, and after a time, I came to see his point.
Now, in neither of these examples, nor others that could be provided should it be assumed that those who play to win don't enjoy themselves, nor, that those who play for fun don't like to win. What would be more correct is to say that who play to win don't enjoy themselves as much if they aren't competing and those who play for fun don't have to win to have fun. Both agree that winning is more fun than losing.
I primarily play RPGs. I very much like playing out the storylines, and exploring the character choices. I spent many years playing Neverwinter Nights (NWN) on Persistent Worlds (PWs). While there, I found a distinct dichotomy among the players. Casual and Hardcore isn't really adequate to this situation, because it was all people who were spending 5-20 hours a week playing, and generally in blocks of at least a couple of hours at a time.
One term used negatively for one camp was Powergamers. These players were definitely hardcore about the game, they spent time studying various character builds in order to learn how to make the strongest builds. They could tell you exactly what they were going to do with the build from the first time they played. They reveled in player-versus-player confrontations.
The other camp preferred the Role-Playing aspects of the game. They preferred to let the story that their character played out to influence (possibly even control) their character build. Often, these players did not seek player-versus-player confrontations.
Now, it isn't that the Powergamers were unwilling to role-play, in fact many of them were quite excellent at the role-play elements of the game, but their characters had to be very powerful, and they used that to push other players around from time to time, all the while claiming that this was the appropriate role-play for that character.
They were competition/goal/victory oriented in their gaming, while the second group was not.
The author brought up basketball. Ever participated in pick-up games, and run across someone who only cared about making the perfect shot? They weren't driven to win. To them it was almost like performance art, and as long as they made that perfect shot, they didn't really care who won or lost.
Some people need to win to have, others don't, participation, the action, not the result is the goal. To me that is the fundamental difference between gamers, whether the game is basketball, golf, or computer games.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)