Linkstew

Since I use Windows at work, I got to immediately download and try out iTunes for Windows. Here are my first three impressions:

1. While the installer asked me if I wanted it to put icons on my desktop, and use iTunes as the default audio player and use QuickTime as the default media player, it did not ask me if I wanted it to put iTunes and QuickTime in my Quick Launch toolbar. It just did it. Bad Apple.
2. The performance isn't bad -- it's a little sluggish at some interface tasks like resizing the window and scrolling, but it's not unresponsive or anything...
   • Subpoint: I'm fairly amused by the Aqua scrollbars for a Windows app.
3. The minimize/maximize features don't work like a normal Windows app. In fact, there's no way to actually fully maximize the iTunes Window -- all you can do is drag it so it's mostly full screen. Double clicking on the title bar toggles between default window dimensions / placement, and your custom window dimensions / placement. Clicking on the minimize/maximize button, meanwhile, toggles the iTunes window between the controller window and the full window.
   • Subpoint: The controller window lacks several features that Windows users will be used to from WinAmp: In particular, there's no way to dock the controller with the edge of the screen, and there's no way to make the controller float above other windows.

All in all, not bad for a first Windows version. It shouldn't send people screaming, and hopefully it has enough features that Windows users will keep it around. It's surprisingly faithful to the Mac version. I'll be really interested to see what Windows users think of iTunes.

Oh, and I'm still upset that I can't just re-download music I already bought at the Music Store on this computer. That would have been a really nice feature to have today, because I don't have any music on my work computer. It'd be great to be able to redownload, because then I could buy new music at work and listen to it, and then when I got home it would just be in my download queue on my Mac, and I could download it there and then put it on my iPod for the future. Well, you know what to do.

Longhorn goes to pieces

Huh, Microsoft's making Longhorn more Modular? Huh, what a novel idea![/deadpan]

Windows Server 2003 as a Workstation: Great, But Not Unconditionally

The author said "However, my curiosity about OSes drove me...," and its because of my curiosity about OSes that I find this article interesting. A pretty good review of Win2k3 server-as-a-workstation. One thing I did find interesting was that, according to the article, the cheapest option for acquiring Windows Server 2003 is $800, and that's only a 5-client version that probably only runs on a limited number of processors. In contrast, full price for Mac OS X Server with unlimited clients is only $1000. Who has a monopoly again?

Eight years old, and he's a Microsoft professional

Well, the article claims he can "install most operating systems," so maybe he isn't your average Microsoft Certified Lapdog. It wasn't clear to me how much of it was the kid taking the test because he wanted to.

The Road to Windows "Longhorn" Part Two

More like "The Long Road to Longhorn." Seriously, if Apple continues its current pace, we'll have been using Panther's successor for a few months by the time Longhorn comes out.

While reading this Windows Server 2003 kernel guru Q and A I came across this absolutely fantastic quote:

[M]ost of the time, if the application is following the rules then it will run [on Windows Server 2003]. But I must admit the rules haven't been well publicised.

Heh.

First up, I read this article about the Windows build process. As I read it, I was a good combination of horrified and fascinated. I can't even begin to comprehend the complexity involved in that thing... Five thousand programmers? That's almost as many residents as live in the UC Berkeley dorms, and I can't imagine all of them being organized towards one common goal, with the possibility that something someone does will impact someone else's system in some unpredictable way...

And yes, I was horrified by both the complexity being described, and horrified that I was fascinated by what I was reading. Proof once again that I am a geek.

As I read the article, I imagined that the programmers at the lowest levels didn't even know what they were working on -- that they were given a specification for a subroutine, and were just asked to make it do something based on the input. This image was fueled by Stephenson's description of Y.T.'s mom's job with the Feds in Snow Crash, where the programmers are "interchangeable parts" turning out tiny widgets, and the actual software engineering is done by people who aren't actually programming.

The quote that most caught my eye from the article was about the significance of a broken build, which boggled my mind almost as much as the complexity involved in the first place. And I

"We've sent out calls at 3 a.m. when the build is broken, find the developer that broke it, and get him into work right then and fix it immediately. The developers are on call 24 hours a day. There's definitely an escalation process. A broken build is considered a critical, severity-1 problem."

It also got me wondering how Mac OS X and Apple compares. Maybe I'll find out some day.

Second, this interview with Marc Andreessen (one of the co-founders of Netscape) was kind of short, but he did say one thing that I found very thought provoking:

"Things like the back and forward button, we never intended that to be a permanent part of the interface. But people get locked into metaphors. You have to be careful with the metaphors you put in front of people because once they click onto one, that's it.

Consider how pervasive the back and forward button have become these days -- to the point of being "basic" features of our file system browsers -- and you'll see how significant it really is.

I'm back in Berkeley, thanks to a project due Monday at work. Well, at least I got most of the project done today.

Benjy: Oh heaven help my soul, I have to go log into Windows.
Stealth Josette: oh god no
Benjy: Stupid IE compatability testing. Where are my minions to delegate this sort of thing to?

To be fair, my "delegating" usually only consists of sending a Windows-using co-worker a URL on IM and asking them if it looks alright. It's not like I'm asking them to get up instead of me or anything.

Oh man, I might've been willing to install Windows to play Jedi Outcast, but to play multiplayer, I would have to use MSN's Gaming Zone. And to use MSN's Gaming Zone, I have to have a Microsoft Passport. And I don't have a Microsoft Passport, and I refuse to get one, even if it means I can't play Jedi Outcast online.

Let it be known that I do have some standards that I won't violate, even for the chance to duel with lightsabers against someone online.

They're making a sequel to Jedi Knight?

They made a sequel to Jedi Knight, and it's out now?

::blink blink::

If you'll excuse me, I need to go to CompUSA.

Man, this means I'm going to have to install Windows. Well, let it be known that Jedi Outcast is what got me to cave.

I don't typically like bashing religion, but this article is just too ridiculous. Taking a gander at the article's meta keywords, I think even the site's web monkey found this amusing, as "incoherent" was included. Here's a choice quote from the article:

"The recent release of Windows XP illustrates the concept of intelligent design. If Windows XP points to Bill Gates, how much more do the marvelous complexities of DNA point directly to God, the great Intelligent Designer?"

Lately when I've walked past the Gateway store on Shattuck, I've been tempted to go in and play with Windows XP. But every time I stopped myself, and decided I'd come back later wearing an Apple t-shirt and ask a lot of difficult questions of the poor sales representatives. ;-)