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

Hands off! Don't touch! It's my iPad! Buy your own!

Smartphones, iPhones and iPod Touches are personal devices that are meant to be used only by one user. They are perfect for individuals because they are small, fit in your pocket, cheap, and everyone has their own. A computer on the other hand is large, expensive and is designed to be shared by several people. Everyone in the household can have their own account with their own settings, their own music, photos, apps, bookmarks, usernames and passwords to websites, and so on. So is the iPad a personal device that is designed for one person to use or is it a device that the whole family can use? It's a very important question and you might not like the answer.

Whether you have a smartphone, iPhone or iPod Touch, it's a personal devices that is set up for your private email accounts, it has your own private calendar, appointments and contacts, the web browser remembers your login user names and passwords for various websites, the Facebook app goes straight into your account and shows your wall, and when you post an update it goes on your account, and when you upload a photo it goes into your album. Your Twitter app shows your Twitter feed and postings are made to your Twitter account. When you browse the web, the browser has your personal bookmarks, and usernames and login details are remembered and you automatically log in to sites as you.

When you put the iPad down, someone will say "Can I use the iPad now?" or "Pad the iPad over I want to go online." You'll have to say no. Hands off! Don't touch! It's my iPad! Buy your own!

When you put the iPad down, your wife or kids are going to be dying to use it, it's so cool, but just think. They'll have access to your email accounts and will be able to read all your mail and send mail from your account. It'll have your calendar appointments and they'll be adding their own, which will then appear in your calendar on your computer when you sync the iPad. They'll want to add their own contacts, which will then get mixed up with yours (would your kids want to put all their friends into your contact book?). Your kids will be logging on to your Facebook and Twitter accounts, your eBay account, adding bookmarks to websites you have no interest in, which then get synced to your desktop computer. They'll be automatically logged into all the websites you've signed up for as you because usernames and passwords are stored. They'll be buying and downloading content from iTunes on your account and their music will be mixed in with yours.

Every single app in the iTunes store is designed for a single user. OK, it doesn't matter if it's iFart, but a lot of apps use personal information, files, settings, login details, and so on, and they are not designed for multiple users. Facebook and Twitter apps are good examples, but there are many others. iWork for the iPad for example - will other people that use the iPad have access to all your files? Can they load them, change them, delete them? Are you sure you want to pass your iPad over to your kids to play with?

I've not used the iPad, but from what I've seen and heard I can't see anything that would allow for multiple users in the way that a computer allows multiple accounts each with their own settings and files. The iPad is a souped up iPod Touch and it's designed for a single user. All apps are designed for single users. So when your wife or kids ask to use the iPad, you'll have to say no, go and buy your own.

Are you seriously going to buy everyone in the household their own iPad at $500 each for the base model with no extras? No way! The iPad is too big and too expensive to be a personal device and it needs to be a shared device like a computer with separate accounts for each user.

Read More

Picture yourself using an Apple iPad

Can you picture yourself using an Apple iPad? Where? When? What will you be doing on it? Are you at home sitting on the sofa viewing your photos? Are you on a train commuting to work and browsing the web? Are you in a coffee shop catching up with your email? Yes, of course you can picture yourself doing all these things, but before you pitch your tent outside the nearest Apple store to be the first in the queue for the iPad, you also have to consider the alternative ways of performing these common activities.

If you are at home you will have your smartphone with you, a desktop computer, and possibly a laptop computer too. You could browse the web on the iPad, but you could also sit at your desktop PC (I don't just mean Windows PCs, but all personal computers including Mac and Linux) with its much larger monitor - and Flash. You can also do much more with the content available on the web too, such as save files, clip text or images and save them for later. You could view your photos on the iPad, but you could also hook your camera up to the big LCD/plasma TV in the lounge, or use your laptop/desktop PC and then tweak the photos in a photo editor, organise them into albums, turn them into videos and so on using a desktop or laptop.

You could play games on the iPad, but you've probably got an Xbox, Playstation or Wii that's much better. You also have the PC too, which is a good gaming platform. The joysticks, game pads and other controllers make consoles and PCs much more fun for playing games. You could watch streaming TV or video on the iPad, but wouldn't it be better on your desktop PC with its large screen, or even a laptop with a 15in screen? You can also easily hook up a PC to your LCD or plasma and watch streaming TV/video in high definition on a 40in screen or whatever you have. You can picture yourself listening to music, but if you get up and walk around then it's awkward to carry and an iPod will fit your pocket. If you want to look up recipes on the web in the kitchen you could use the iPad, but you could easily plonk your laptop on the worktop  and use that instead. An iPad would be marginally more convenient, but not greatly so.

Yes, I can picture myself using an iPad at home, but whatever I do, there is an alternative and that alternative is often better.

Can you picture yourself on the train commuting to work using an iPad? Can you picture yourself in a coffee shop using an iPad? No doubt you can, but when you leave the house you either need to work or you don't. If you don't need to work then a smartphone has everything you need, particularly the iPhone, which is also a great music and video player, and has email, contacts, web browsing and more. Sometimes you want to travel light and a smartphone is perfect. You can keep in touch with friends and work colleagues, tweet, post to Facebook and more. It would not be convenient to carry around a large iPad. It won't fit your pocket and you'd need a bag or carry case.

Sometimes when you are out you need to work on on the go - work on a presentation, a document, a spreadsheet, DTPed brochure, or whatever. If you need to work you need a laptop and nothing else will do. An iPad isn't really suitable in these situations because it is much less functional than a laptop. It's lighter and thinner, but that doesn't make up for the inability to do useful work.

I couldn't leave my phone at home because the iPad doesn't make calls, and I couldn't leave my laptop at home because then I wouldn't be able to do any work.

Whether I'm at home or out, I can't really see how an iPad would be superior to either my smartphone or my laptop. In a small number of circumstances it might be more convenient because of its portability compared to a laptop, but those circumstances are rare. With two computers, a laptop, an iPod, a smartphone, and an LCD TV at home, why would I need an iPad? And when I'm out, an iPad is less portable than my smartphone and less functional than my laptop.

I'm not anti iPad and I think Apple has produced the best tablet computer ever. No-one has come up with a design that is anywhere near as good as it. However, I just don't think that there is a gap between the smartphone, netbook, laptop and desktop PC markets.

The iPad will definitely be a success and Apple will make loads of money from it. Apple fans and gadget lovers will ensure that. The only question is how much of a success it will be. Will it sell like the iPod (do you know anyone that doesn't have an iPod - or iPhone which is also an iPod?), or will it sell like the Apple TV (ask your friends about the Apple TV and most won't have heard of it)? I suspect it will sell more like the Apple TV, at least in its current form.

Read More

Apple iPad vs Dell Inspiron 15

Apple surprised everyone with the price of the new iPad and it is just $499, which is probably a couple of hundred less than people were expecting. Of course, the iPad looks fantastic and it is a very desirable gadget, but seriously though, if you had $499 to spend, would you really buy an iPad?

Any sensible person would look at the alternatives that are on offer and a trip to the Dell website revealed that for less money you could buy an Inspiron 15 laptop computer. This is just one example from one company and there are many alternatives, but it serves the purpose of this comparison.

	Dell Inspiron 15	Apple iPad
Processor	Dual core T4400 2.2GHz	1GHz A4
OS	Windows 7	iPhone OS
Display	15.5in LCD	9.7in LCD
DVD	8X DVD burner	None
Memory	3Gb
Storage	250Gb	16Gb
Wi-Fi	Yes	Yes
Battery	8 hours	10 Hours
Keyboard	Built in	Costs extra
Case	Built in	Costs extra
Camera connection	Built in	Costs extra
USB	Built in	None
Price	$489	$499

An Apple iPad is really quite limited both in the hardware and the software it can run and for less money you can have a powerful laptop computer. I know there are a thousands apps in the iTunes app store, but a lot of them are very simple. Just think, you can run iFart even bigger and better on an iPad! The Dell on the other hand can run Microsoft Office, Photoshop, and a zillion other freeware, open source and commercial applications. The Dell is a real computer that runs serious software (and fun apps and games too). OK, the iPad runs iWork, but who uses iWork? It also costs extra whereas OpenOffice for the Dell is free and has more features.

Of course, I would like an iPad because it is lighter, more portable and looks fantastic, but when you compare the capabilities of a laptop, even a budget one, the laptop blows the iPad away. When it comes to spending my own money my head rules over my heart and I would have to buy the Dell even though I'd love the iPad.

Remember that this is version 1 and they say you should never buy version 1 of anything. I think that two or three generations down the line when Apple has improved the hardware and operating system and when developers have written some cool apps for it, it will be a good buy. Just compare the latest iPhone 3GS with the original iPhone on launch day to see how much it has changed. If the iPad is developed in a similar way then it'll be great in three years time. Right now though, it looks cool, but I think my money would go elsewhere.

(PS. There are lots of optional extras for the Dell. I chose a better battery which added $40 to the price, but it lasts nearly as long as the iPad. The Inspiron 15 actually starts at $449.)

Read More