Music prices up, sales down...

Music sales at the iTunes store have apparently been falling for the past year and it is interesting to speculate why this might be. One obvious reason is that we are still in the middle of a recession and many people are spending much less than they used to. We all need to cut back a bit and save money, so buying a bit less music might be the result. However, another reason is that the iTunes store used to have a flat fee for all music tracks, but that policy was abandoned last spring and some prices have risen.

Prices in the iTunes store don't vary much, but some tracks are more clearly expensive than others. Are people simply being put off by the higher prices? When you see two tracks next to each other and one is £0.79 and the other is £0.99 (UK prices), do you think twice about buying the more expensive one? I'm not sure. If you really want a track then 20p isn't that much more to pay.

The falling sales at the iTunes store could be a combination of the recession and higher prices rather than simply one or the other.

As I have pointed out before, there are still bargains to be found though and music is sold by the track and not the playing time. Popular music singles tend to be just over three minutes because that is the optimum length for them. If your musical tastes are wider though, there are still bargains to be had.

One of the artists I like is Rick Wakeman. Searching for 'Wakeman' at the iTunes store lists all his music. You can then click the Time heading in the results to order by track length. You'll see that tracks that range from  less than one minute to just under 10 minutes - all for the same price. So I can buy Catharine Howard at 9 minutes 52 seconds for the same price as an average three minute pop single. That's excellent value for money.

At the other extreme is The Ravine, which at 49 seconds is the same price as the 9:52 track. That's crazy! Surely the price of music should be related to its length? I'll continue to look for the bargains and buy the longest tracks I can find and ignore the short ones. They are just too expensive.

Read More

The myth of defragmenting

When files are stored on the hard disk drive they can become fragmented, which literally means that they are broken into small fragments. These can be stored anywhere on the disk surface and when you want to access a fragmented file the disk has to jump all over the place fetching the various parts and this seriously affects the performance of the system. Windows needs to be regularly defragmented to boost the speed. Apple Mac OS X and Linux systems don't need defragmenting. These are common beliefs, but really they are myths. Windows doesn't need defragmenting as often as people think, Apple Mac OS X and Linux systems are not immune from fragmentation, and fragmentation doesn't affect performance that much.

Whether you use Windows, Linux or OS X, it's a fact that files become fragmented on hard disk drives. It is inevitable and it is hard to prevent. All operating systems have features for minimising fragmentation and small files that are frequently accessed are automatically defragmented. This automatic defragmentation only goes so far though, and fragmented files can be found on the disks of all operating systems and it is not just a Windows problem.

It is a myth that Linux and OS X do not have file fragmentation. They do. There are utilities available that both display the amount of fragmentation and help to defragment the disk on Linux and OS X.

It is a myth that Windows systems need defragmenting every day to stop them slowing down. They don't even need defragmenting every week and once a month is fine.

It is a myth that fragmentation seriously affects a PC's performance. It's also a myth that defragmenting a disk significantly speeds up a PC. Modern hard disk drives are extremely fast and this means that fragmentation doesn't affect them as much as it used to when disk drives were slower. Defragmenting an extremely fragmentated disk will definitely speed it up a little, but it has to be really bad before it becomes noticeable. The amount of fragmentation you get over a day or a week just isn't noticeable. Leave a disk for a year and it will be noticeably slower though and then defragmenting it will noticeably speed it up.

Here are 7 disk defragmenters for Apple Mac OS X and 15 disk defragmenters for Windows PCs. Linux is a bit more complicated, but there are disk defragmetation tools out there if you search for them.

Read More

Are the Kindle and iPad eBook readers really worth it?

eBook readers are cool gadgets and Amazon has sold more than a million Kindles according to some sources and it says that sales of eBooks were actually better than real books last Christmas. Amazon isn't the only supplier of eBook readers of course, and there are Sony devices and many more. Now there is also Apple's iPad. However, you have to wonder whether there is really a mass market for them when you consider how much the device costs and how much eBooks cost. You'll pay hundred of pounds/dollars for the device itself and then sometimes the eBooks are more expensive than the paper editions. That's crazy!

The Amazon Kindle is $259 for the 6in version and $489 for the 9.7in version. OK, let's assume I'm buying the cheaper one. There isn't a UK price, but $259 is £165 at today's exchange rate and Amazon will ship one to the UK. Now suppose I want to read The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo by Stieg Larsson. The Kindle version is $6.31, which is £4.02. However, the paperback edition with free postage is just £3.49 from the UK Amazon store. Why on earth would I want to spend a large amount of money on an eBook reader and then pay even more for eBooks when the old fashioned paper edition, which has worked for hundreds of years, is cheaper? I just don't get eBook readers.

Just think about it. Trees have to be cut down and transported to a sawmill and chopped up, then taken to a paper mill and turned into paper. This has to be transported to a printer and combined with ink on a huge and expensive printing press and turned into a book, which then has to be transported to a warehouse. Then it has transported to my home by train or truck when I buy it. How can this cost more than a eBook, which has no physical form at all? The cost of producing and delivering an eBook isn't zero, but it must be very close, so why aren't eBooks much cheaper?

OK, I have only quoted one example of an eBook that costs more than its paper equivalent and no doubt there are many that cost less. But really, all eBooks should cost a lot less than paper books and they should never cost more.

The launch of Apple's iPad has made the situation even worse because now that there is an alternative platform for book publishers (I know there are other eBook readers, but the iPad userbase is quickly going to number in the millions). Pressure is being put on Amazon to raise the prices of eBooks even more. I can't see a future for eBook readers like the Kindle or iPad beyond gadget lovers and enthusiasts.

The only way I would consider an eBook reader is if it cost the same or less as buying traditional books - the cost of the eBook reader plus the cost of the books I might read over its expected lifetime. I know some people will point out that you can carry 200+ books on a Kindle or iPad, but most people read one book at a time - you buy one, you read it, you buy another, and so on. Apart from a few niche markets (students, technicians), you rarely, if ever, need to carry more than one book.

I'm currently reading The Bourne Identity and it's a great book that's very similar to the film so I will follow this with The Bourne Supremacy and The Bourne Ultimatum. I borrowed them from the local library for free. eBooks? No thanks!

Read More

Which is more secure, Windows PCs or Apple Macs?

This is a debate that has been going on for years and will no doubt continue for several more. The reason I bring it up is an article that was recently posted on Cnet News. It's a very good article that is well worth reading, but it doesn't really matter which operating system is the most secure because any system is only as secure as the weakest link. This is, of course, people. People use computers of all types and this makes them all equally insecure.

The problem is that it is very easy to create an email that pretends to come from someone else. For example, I could create an email that reads something like this: "Dear Apple Mac user, in our ongoing efforts to ensure that OS X is the most secure operating system available and that you continue to enjoy the high security and safety of the Apple Mac, we ask that you run the attached file. This will update your security settings. Please note that you will need to enter your password when installing the update. This is so that important system components can be updated. Yours sincerely, Apple Technical Support." The attached file would be a malicious program that emailed a copy of itself to all your Address Book contacts before formatting the hard disk drive.

Of course, some people would see through the scam straight away, but it is part of human nature to do as we are told, especially by someone in authority or who is more expert than ourselves. Consequently, a certain proportion of people receiving such an email would save the attached file and run it. And when it asked for the administrator password, as Mac apps do when they try to modify any system setting or component, people will do it. This is perfectly normal when installing applications or software updates on the Mac.

The operating system - Windows, OS X, Linux - can't tell a legitimate program from a malicious one and anti malware software can only recognise programs that are in their database. If it's not recognised by anti malware software, or if the user doesn't have any, then the program will be allowed to run.

The reason I used an Apple Mac example above is just to show how ordinary people can be duped into running malware. This sort of email is very common in the Windows world and it's used by Apple and Mac fans to highlight how insecure Windows PCs are and to ridicule them. However, an email targeting Mac users, or Linux users for that matter, like the one above would be just as effective. So which is more secure, Windows PCs or Apple Mac? It really boils down to how gullible the user is.

Malware doesn't just arrive by email, although that's the place I see it the most. You can get infected by malware just by visiting a website, but web browsers are getting better at warning you of suspicious websites and dodgy downloads. Just type in the address or click a link and they'll display a warning before you even go there.

Remember, you are the weakest link when it comes to security.

The single biggest advantage of using an Apple Mac is that very little malware has been written for it. It's not that it's hard, it isn't, it's just that Windows is a much bigger target. I have no anti virus software, no anti spyware software and no other security software apart from a firewall on my Mac. I've been using it for years and have never been infected with any malicious software or adware.

I have to say though, that I've been using Windows PCs for years too, and have never been infected with malware. Windows security software - there's a lot to choose from - easily deals with most threats. However, I often use Windows PCs without any security software at all and still haven't been infected. But then I'm not easily conned into installing dodgy software. Being sensible and suspicious of offers that sound too good to be true and claims in dodgy pop-up adverts and attachments to emails will go a long way in protecting you on the internet. Windows is nowhere near the virus and bug ridden operating system that some people claim. You just need to apply some common sense.

Trust no-one, suspect everyone. Then you won't get caught whether you use Windows, OS X or Linux.

Read More