One anti virus/spyware program is enough

When it comes to protection, surely you can't have too much, or can you? Well, yes you can actually and some people are reducing the performance of their computers by forcing it to work with layer upon layer of security. On several occasions I've been asked for advice about security and the person has revealed that they are running two or even three anti virus and anti spyware programs, or they run an anti virus program and then not realising that it also checks for spyware too, go and install an anti spyware program too or leave Windows Defender running at the same time. They also install a firewall and have Windows firewall running at the same time too. Two anti virus programs are not better than one and they aren't guaranteed to catch any more viruses. They just get in each others way and limit the performance of the computer.

When you choose an anti virus program, check whether it also scans for spyware too and if it does, don't install any anti spyware software and disable Windows Defender. When you install a firewall, turn off Windows Firewall because it's not needed.

If you're looking to buy anti virus/spyware software and want to know what is best, go to the Virus Bulletin website and check out the history for each vendor (free registration required).

Read More

Is Apple's MacBook Air a netbook?

After saying for a long time that it would never make a netbook computer, Apple, goes and launches one, or has it? Is the new MacBook Air with the 11in screen a netbook or not and how will it affect the existing netbook market? It's debatable whether the Air is a netbook or not and some people regard it as a netbook competitor, but others don't. It is half way between a netbook and a laptop and it has a bigger screen than netbooks, which are usually 10in. However, it is also smaller than a laptop and usually laptops have screens of 13in or more. Most netbooks come with 1Gb of RAM, but the Air has 2Gb and laptops often have 3 or 4Gb. It has an Intel Core 2 Duo processor, which isn't used in other netbooks and the Intel Atom is more common. The MacBook Air is therefore more like an ultra-light, compact and portable laptop.

There are three main selling points for netbooks and the first is that they are true computers. They can run all Windows software and you can attach all manner of peripherals to them, just like a regular computer. You can even format the hard disk drive and intall a different operating system, such as Linux. This is where netbooks differ from the iPad. The iPad isn't a stand-alone computer that can run the software and operating systems used by desktop computers. Of course, netbooks are low powered, so they are slow and you wouldn't want to edit 20 megapixel images in Photoshop, but power aside, they are true computers. The MacBook Air is just as capable of running desktop software as a MacBook and if anything, the Air is more powerful than the current crop of netbooks on the market. The MacBook Air is therefore a winner here.

The second selling point is that Netbooks are small and light. This makes them easy to carry and to store. The Air is slightly bigger than a standard netbook, but not by much and it is incredibly thin. Some netbooks are quite chunky, so here we have a draw and some people might prefer the smaller size of a netbook, but others may like thinness of the Air.

The third selling point of netbooks is their low price. They are the cheapest computers on the market and prices for bottom of the range models are much lower than for laptops. Top of the range netbooks can cost more than bottom of the range laptops and there is some overlap, but not much. If you don't want to spend much money on a computer then a netbook is clearly an option. What about the MacBook Air? It is actually surprisingly cheap for a MacBook and I expected it to cost a lot more, but it is still double the price of netbooks and it obviously won't appeal to the majority of people that buy netbooks.

The price of the MacBook Air puts it in a different market to netbooks and it is also competing with other MacBooks. MacBook and MacBook Air prices are in the same range and so you have a choice of  the light, but low powered MacBook Air, or a bigger and heavier, although far more powerful MacBook for the same price. You would have to really want that portability to choose an Air over a MacBook.

It's interesting to compare a Dell Inspiron M101z with the entry level MacBook Air. They both have 11in screens with a resolution of 1366 x 768 pixels, they both have 2Gb of RAM, they both have dual core processors (the Dell's is an AMD). The Dell has a 250Gb traditional hard disk, but the Air has a 64Gb solid state drive. The Dell has an ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4225 graphics chipset and the Air has an Nvidia GeForce 320M.

So there's not much difference in the specifications of the two netbook/laptops or whatever you want to call them apart from the extra storage offered by the Dell. However, the price of the Dell is literally half that of the MacBook Air. The Dell is £429 and the MacBook Air is £849 including taxes and delivery. That's a huge price difference.

The MacBook will definitely appeal to people that want a small, light and ultra-portable MacBook, but it won't affect the Windows netbook market much. The price difference is just too great. That Dell is one of the more expensive netbooks and there are much cheaper ones and it was only chosen for this comparison because of the similarity in specifications.

Read More

Cloud based music from Apple?

There have been rumours for some time that Apple is working on a cloud based music service and that this is why it hasn't yet launched a streaming music service. Time is running out for the company and it needs to get this service going as soon as possible. One reason why timing is crucial is because the streaming music service, Spotify, has been doing very well in Europe for a few years now and it is said to be planning to launch in the US by the end of the year. Whether that end-of-year deadline is real or not, Spotify's ambition to launch in the US certainly is and it wants to do it as soon as possible.

The only problem is getting the music industry to agree to allow it. Apple hasn't revealed its plans, but it is fighting to stop Spotify launching and this may be because of the threat to its iTunes store sales, but it could also be because it is planning a similar service of its own. A cloud-based music service could be attractive for music companies, but giving Apple such a dominant position would not.

Apple's dream is for everyone to store their music not on their computers or on CDs, but in the cloud - some internet storage system that looks after everything for you. The advantage to the user is that you would be able to listen to your music on any device anywhere. You could stream it to whatever device you are using straight from the internet, or download and cache a certain amount for offline use when you don't have a Wi-Fi or mobile signal.

This is a great idea in theory, but knowing how much trouble I have with internet connections, it's not something I would want to rely on. The internet is brilliant when it works, but it's availability is patchy and the connection quality is variable. The Wi-Fi at a Starbucks I regularly visit has been down for a week and don't get me started on my home internet, it's been appalling lately.

From the music companies' point of view, a cloud based music service would be good because it would prevent people from pirating music. Copying and sharing music is one of the biggest irritations to the music industry and if everyone's music was stored online it would be difficult, if not impossible, for anyone to share it. Security within the music and internet service would enable it to work on your own devices, but prevent it from working with anyone else's if you tried to pass it on. What's more, it would be very easy for someone to flick a switch and block access to the cloud music service for anyone suspected of file sharing. One mouse click and the pirate's gone.

Of course, this wouldn't stop people from buying CDs, ripping them and sharing the files, so cloud based music would only be attractive to honest people and the pirates would continue as usual. However, music companies might see cloud music as being a step in the right direction.
The downside is that it would give Apple too much control and market share. The company is already the biggest seller of music and it sells more tracks online than music companies sell on CDs. Letting it also run a cloud based music service would give it even more power than it already has and it would take away power from the music companies. This is a bad idea and the music industry needs a competitive market, which weighs in Spotify's favour.

The music industry is stuck between a rock and a hard place as they say. The best solution for everyone would be for the music industry to do a deal with both Apple and Spotify. Competition and freedom of choice is always the best option.

Read More

Poor service from PayPal

On Sunday 3rd October I logged on to PayPal and withdrew some money, transferring it to my bank account. It was a small sum, but I needed the cash. The money was instantly removed from my PayPal account, but it did not appear in my bank account until 7th October. Where was my money between 3rd and 7th October? It wasn't in my PayPal account and it wasn't in my bank account. This would be understandable 20 or 30 years ago when everything was done by hand, but in 2010 all transactions are carried out by computers and are pretty much instantaneous. The only reason I can think of why my money disappears for four days is because PayPal puts a countdown timer on the transaction. It takes the money off you straight away and it goes into PayPal's bank account. The company can then do whatever it likes with it for free, including investing it and earning interest, and then when the countdown timer reaches zero, it carries out the transaction and passes the money on. This is poor service and we shouldn't stand for it. Every time PayPal takes several days to transfer money to your bank account you should write an email and complain.


My bank used to be slow and like PayPal it took several days to transfer money from one account to another. It's sharpened up its act and it now does it in two hours. It's not instantaneous, but two hours is OK. Several days is not! If enough of us complain about this shoddy business practice from PayPal we might get the company to improve its service. Sitting back and accepting it will not. Write that email, after all, it's your money that PayPal is grabbing and the company is preventing you from accessing it. Why should this be allowed?

Read More