Tannishblog

Confession time: I’m obsessed with EVE Online. Most people know me as an old gamer. By old, I mean that I’ve been gaming since the first Civilization came out. I’ve probably logged ten thousand hours playing all the iterations of that franchise over the years.

I game like some people read: a leisure activity that stimulates the mind. I gave up television decades ago. For ten years, I worked and immersed myself in the bookstore culture, reading all I can and reading up on the rest - new releases of the day, New York Tomes bestsellers, Oprah reading club picks. My game has always been - to some degree - stimulating my brain.
Many would scoff, especially my loving wife, that computer games are a waste of time. To them, I say: yes. All leisure pursuits are time wasters; that is their function. Scoffers are reacting to media-fed stereotypes and hysterical ignorants.

I could go off about the bad rap shooters get. Most of the bad names they earn; that is how copies are sold to that demographic. The fact that most computer games involve guns is an unfortunate affect of several factors dovetailing: the limitations of computer simulations, programming techniques and human interface design; the psychological zeitgeist of our culture, i.e, our addiction to gratuitous sensory input and the attendant emotional jolt; and the common goal of all game design houses - profit.

But not all games are primarily kill-or-be-killed, primal endorfin feasts. Many war simulations are strategic, as are the aforementioned Civilization and it’s 4X clones (explore, expand, exploit & exterminate.) Many deal with complex scenarios inspired by meatspace. SimCity is a great example of a world renown title of management simulation. Even the hokey Second Life deals with the complexity of social and societal interactions.

So stands the two major camps of gaming nerds: twitchy trigger enthusiasts blasting anything that moves, and ponderous playing with a god-like perspective and similar responsibilities. Although many gamers play in both styles, most prefer on or the other. Game designers have looked for the Holy Grail of gaming that would unite the wallets of the two camps. Thus was born the MMORPG.

These Massivley Multiplayer Olnine Role-Playing games (or MMO’s), amalgams of twitchy ponderousness, can be played to whatever is one’s personal style. To the strategists, Player-Vs-Environment elements are available. For the rest, Player-Vs-Player campaigns allow the killer instincts to flourish as complete strangers show their antisocial proclivities.

EVE online, to which I am currently enamored (read: addicted,) is an MMO that on the surface is a space shooter a la Star Trek the Elder. I can be played that way, with squadrons of ships blazing at each other in true Space Opera milieu. but that would ignore the real depth of this game. Billed as the largest online “world” in the world, EVE Online is an entire galaxy of star systems to explore, with human faction-states and a multitude of corporations vying for political and economic supremacy.

The lowly star pilot noobie can proceed all the way to CEO of a player-owned corporation and build her very own space station and get involved with faction politics and the inevitable war or two. Under this expansive realm of possibilities is an economic simulator; EVE Online is a game of Capitalistic pursuits which dispenses the rigid, stratified leveling of World of Warcraft clones and replaces it with an educational approach of gaining abilities by studying for skills over time. In this way, a player has complete control of the abilities she wishes to have, and is not funneled into Warrior, Mage, Cleric, Thief variations.

So that’s what I’m into this year. As an entertainment value, I’ve always believed that a fifty-dollar game should - at least - give 100 hours of enjoyment as a fair return of investment. Not all can do this, and to gamble with a Franklin every other month is too often disappointing. With the monthly dues of a MMO, one can get as much value as one wants until boredom or something else comes along. Yes, after a year’s time, I’ll spend more on EVE than other games, but I’ll probably spend less money this year on gaming than in years past. That’s the real value!

…or “What I’ve Been Doing Lately Instead of Playing Computer Games.”

Blog themes never seem to hit the right spot. A consummate geek must modify. Blogger made the tweaking relatively simple, so I was able to create a new masthead in Paint Shop Pro (Photoshop is too pricey), and modify the blog’s colors accordingly. Playing with the structure was off limits, lest the aspiring geek noob break their site.

It wasn’t enough. Partly that longing to get “under the hood” led me to switch to Wordpress last June. The price was right too. Gotta love the free software groupies. My first peek seemed daunting, so I altered a couple color settings and left the template alone. All Wordpress templates are of high quality, so I was happy - for a while.

Working with the same site presentation over time gets weary on the eyes, and incessant curiosity and an attenuated slow season at work compelled me to dive into the CSS sites and read the Wordpress Codex (a lot of it, anyway.) Production themes, as they are called, involved a healthy dose of CSS, a smattering of PHP, a refreshening of my web standards knowledge, Paint Shop Pro skills, and installations of MySQL and Apache web server. Color schemes were limited because I felt obliged to use tan as a base - something about the name…

Ten weeks later I emerge wondering where all the snow went, proud of my finished fourth-attempt of a blog template (the other three will be done soon.) At least I think it’s finished… as much as anything like this can ever be complete.

I hope you like it. Feel free to comment.

I've been playing around a lot with software installations this week. After running out to buy Vista and experiencing the morning-after buyers remorse (or is it grieving for dearly departed money?) I look forward to a New User Experience (trademark pending.) I didn't go into this project blind - I did my homework. Several people, when writing about their experiences with the beta releases of Vista, recommending a dual-installation with XP. Paul Therott, whom I look up to as a mentor, recommends Symantec's Partition Magic to manage partitions and boot sequence. Yes, Vista has its own boot manager, but if Paul doesn't use it, who am I to argue? Symantec. I've had trouble with their stuff lately, but if Guru Paul says so, I'll try it. What's another seventy dollars?

For the un-geek, Partition Magic has two parts, the namesake program divides hard drive space into smaller, theoretically more manageable spaces. There as several benefits to this, but the one I'm interested in is to separate operating systems into their own niches. Then comes the need to inform the computer which system to run at startup. That's the job of Boot Magic, which loads before Windows does to ask us just that.

Don't you love the names? I could insert a whole litany here. It's enough to note that the first time I tried to prepare my hard drive in accordance with instructions in Partition Commander's skimpy booklet, Symantec's magical technology hung during the process. I waited an hour for a simple repartitioning command to complete. It should've take three minutes, max! End result: goodbye Windows XP and all its accoutrements. Now that's Magic! (They thoughtfully provide a manual in PDF format which installs with the program. When your computer fails to reboot, however, access to the manual is lost. Perhaps they thought everyone would waste paper by printing out the 90+ page document.)

I'm faced with a dilemma. Do I embrace adventure, install Vista alone and hope all my legacy programs work? Or do I still take Paul's advice and dual-boot? (Actually, my ultimate intention is to triple-boot with Ubuntu Linux as a third operating system.) I decided to stay the course and begin to rebuild my XP install. I'm still miffed about wasting money on Symantec - again - and give into the urge to try them - again. Several hours later, I have a working XP install with all the latest drivers, Partition magic installed, a new partition created for Vista, a working install of Vista, and Boot Magic managing the whole thing. I'm up past bedtime testing the configuration.

In the morning, the computer won't boot: something about a corrupted MBR (Master Boot Record, the first part of the hard drive where all the formatting information is kept.). Luckily, I made the recovery disks for both Partition Magic and Boot Magic. A quick adjustment from the recovery disk, and XP started right up. Vista, however, wouldn't. It seems that the fix provided by Boot Magic's recovery disk was incompatible with the way Partition Magic reads the MBR, resulting in corruption. Need I remind you that these programs are sold together on the same CD? Need I reiterate how I hate Symantec? Sorry, Paul. Your uncontested sagacity didn't work for me. Seventy dollars, POOF!

Rebuild, rebuild, rebuild. Using Vista's native boot manager flawlessly, I ponder the wisdom of attempting to add Linux to the mix. Ubuntu uses it's own boot manager, which may cause conflict. I'll have do to some research.

Oh, but I LOVE computers, this is so much fun! Costly, sure, but still fun. It's sort of like paying for concert tickets and seeing a mediocre performance - you know, that dry taste in your mind as you tally the dollars-per-hour you just experienced?

Windows Update:

It’s nice to know a service is running that keep abreast of all the tweak and security fixes needed for the world’s most ubiquitous operating system. But those word-bubbles at the bottom right of your screen are hard to ignore, and once clicked on you get a friendly reminder that "You can continue working." But you can’t, really, because the installer invades the center of your workspace with at least four pop-up windows: I’m going to install now; is it okay to install now; legal-document-you-don’t-care-to-read listing all-the-rights-you-don’t-have despite the money you spent; Okay, I’m installing now…

I’m typing this as I finally give in to allow MS to install IE7 (I use Firefox, but I’m tired of the interruptions.) Seven times during the creation of the above paragraph, the caret focus inexplicably de-focused on what I was working on. In the middle of typing a word, I hear the digital plink-plink of wasted keystrokes, causing me to point-and-click at the top window to refocus attention on my work, insert the cursor into the correct spot in the document, and finish the word. Wait, it did it again?

Then comes the "please restart" window, which I ignore because - HELLO! - I’m working, here! But I have to wrap this post up. In a couple of minutes, ad infinitum, I will be reminded by my friendly operating system that its waiting to restart…

…Yep. It just asked me again. Microsoft should reassess its idea of "continue working." As the man said, "I don’t think it means what you think it means…"

I've been trolling this week anything I find regarding Windows Vista. As part of a postpartum depression for dropping a chuck of money for what is essentially two DVD's (one of which is actually used,) I subconsciously gravitate to the I Hate Windows crowd. Most I could ignore, but one message in particular stood out because the word Zen is prominent in the blog's title. So I click to find out why Leo Won't Be Switching to Vista.

I feel bad, but I trolled him a bit about his attitude. Read the comments. To his credit, he was good-natured about it. Kudos for that.

It got me thinking: The whole computer operating system debate, Windows v Mac v Linux, is really about people's expectations. In fact the way people interact - or don't - with computers is about their expectations of the computing experience.

I'm old enough to remember Tandy's TRS-80, the first truly mass market personal computer. Several other quickly followed, but the early adapters had mixed feelings about these trendy new gadgets. Some people didn't mind learning a few tricks to use them, some were turned off by that.

Later, When the big OEM's emerged, marketing madmen were learning how to sell people on the concept of buying a machine that a person needs to learn how to use. Even today, that issue is being wrestled. These companies took a page out of the automotive industry and began sell their brand, then following up on the details of the tech. Imagine a typical conversation between neighbors:

"Is that a new car in your driveway?" One guy says leaning over the fence for a better look.

"Yep," came the reply, barely hiding pride.

"Looks nice. What kind is it?"

"It's a Jaguar."

No more needs saying. Neighbor number two has arrived. it's unlikely anyone will out-status this guy soon. Dell computers wanted that same dynamic to work for their brand: you went out and bought a Dell, not a Pentium III, 1.5 gigahertz with 512 mb RAM and a Radeon graphics card. But computers are not cars. They can't be sold like any previous product. In fact, there is no "one good way" to sell computers. that's why some sell software foremost; some sell the glitz. Some sell the whole package, and some prefer the components. It all depends on consumer expectation.

Many people, uninterested in the minutia of machinery, just want to take the thing home and plug it in like their TV. After all, it looks like one. (But computers never got as simple to use as a television set. As time progressed, the TV became more like a computer. Today, there's many more connections to be made on your new widescreen than "back in the day".)

Mac users seem to me to be in that category: Just turn the thing on and use it. As response, Apple's software gurus have consistently lead the way to more a intuitive User Interface. Microsoft (and everyone else) has forever played catch-up.

At the other end of the spectrum, the digital equivalent of grease monkeys embraced the hardware itself. To them, software was just what you did when the thing was assembled to prove how well it was built. They gravitated toward command-line programming languages that eventually lead to UNIX and Linux. In terms of point-and-click, these systems, while technically elegant, were way behind the ease-of-use trend.

Fast forward to today, and the two camps still stand between the same lines drawn in the proverbial sand. "That product sucks, this one's great." The truth lies somewhere in between, as truth is wont to do. All operating systems have flaws. The same can be said for all products created by humans. There are Pro's and Con's to, well, anything I can think of.

In terms of computers and human interface software, what you prefer depends largely on how you intend to use it, but also upon what you're willing to put up with. If you're looking for a stable, secure platform, Linux rules. If you want style, simplicity and artistic licence, Mac is your choice. If you want general business and communication, media and entertainment - read: games - "Hello, Microsoft".

Increasingly, the computer is becoming central to our lifestyles. It's only natural to assume it will become a central appliance in our households. Microsoft is ahead of that curve, wisely so. We can only guess what our grandchildren will expect out of their computing experiences. But expectations will continue to drive the industry.

Call me a fool. Go ahead. I am one of the few early adopters of Windows Vista. I may be foolish, but I left work early yesterday to thin my wallet on Windows Vista Ultimate.

Like any consumer that plunks down 4 Franklins for a new tech toy, I feel a little buyers remorse. So I troll the web reading every new article on the new OS. Unsurprisingly, people are skeptical. Microsoft has earned it's "love-it or hate-it" reputation. Like our president, few people are ambivalent on the subject. I remember the skepticism when XP was released. Many web site and news sources warn against upgrading now, just like they did last time. The reasons - poor driver, security issues, bugs - are still valid. Nonetheless, as Microsoft well knows, everyone who doesn't adopt Linux or join the Apple Cult will eventually upgrade. It's a no-lose proposition for them. What clinches the deal, especially for any one who plays computer games, is DirectX 10, which is poised to raise the bar on graphical capabilities for years to come.

Sure, the operating system loaded fine: I had wiped the drive of my four-month-old XP gaming box, the computer I built with this upgrade in mind, then installed Vista "clean." After a quick search, I found the hardware drivers and installed them okay. Some, though, as still beta versions. Vista does much of this automagically, but it fails to inform you of exactly what it's doing. I'm the type that wants to know…

Vista has this thing that "rates" your machine for, um, Vistability. Mine scored a 4.8 on the Windows compatibility index (or whatever it's called) and, well "Wow" is the right word. Eye candy galore! Again, that's what I thought last time around. It'll become passe all too soon.

What irked me was the lack of support from the two largest anti virus vendors, Symantec and McAfee: I have fresh versions of both security suites, and Vista wouldn't let me install them without claiming a "compatibility conflict." A user can click right through, if he has administrator privilege, and install any way. I tried this with McAfee Internet Security - don't go there. Something weird happens when your try to uninstall the program, and parts don't leave. the only way I could stop it from loading (and crashing) at startup was to rename the folder. Some sub-folders would let me delete them. After that, I didn't bother with Symantec (I've already had problems with them.) Another click at the "Welcome Center" and I'm taken to a Microsoft.com page listing approved AV vendors. Most you pay for, but Avast!4 is free to home users. It works flawlessly.

So, was I wrong to jump on the bandwagon? That's like asking if it was wrong to jump off a cliff: moot. For an overwhelming majority of PC users, even I council patience. But for nuts like me who scrounge for old parts just to recombine them - What're you waiting for? It's only money, they'll make more and so will you.

UPDATE: Matt's Blog mentions a work-around for Symantec Internet Security 2007 owners.

Businesses are predatory. Most would agree with that and add a great big "Duh!" Perhaps I’m warping reality, but I feel that predation is becoming less subtle. What with the last decade of industry-friendly power politics, no wonder.

In the software industry, Microsoft is legend for it’s predatory practices that played a large roll in Windows becoming ubiquitous. Many people still hate MS because of just that, and many also embrace open source software as a direct result of Microsoft malfeasance.

Not enough noise is made for another virtual vulture: Symantec. Like the Redmond folks, the company formally known as Peter Norton Computing has quietly mimicking MS by dealing with the large PC manufacturers and having trial versions of their famous anti-virus software pre-installed on shiny new machines. This, as Redmond proved, is the best way to snare the unwary newbie and chain them to a yearly fee (or two).

Perpetuated by fearmongering, the Antivirus Industry is worth billions. It creates thousand of jobs worldwide. Isn’t it curious how large an industry can become that  requires the collective cooperation of "rogue software developers" and "hackers" to continue to deliver threats in order to maintain its existence? For all appearances, there is no profit in creating trojans, worms and such. Why would any one bother? The unspoken stereotype of a basement coder is a quasi-anarchist, angry, young man, intelligent yet jaded, crouching in the dim unwashed and pale, head haloed with cigarette fumes. Such and image is pure Hollywood, but might bear a bit of truth here and there. Why would an educated rogue, real or imagined, continue a anti-establishment-inspired activity like inflicting malevolent code upon the world’s computer systems, all the while seeing that the "Man" is making a killing counteracting his activities? It doesn’t make sense.

 As a consumer, Symantec is not user friendly.

A personal tale: My elderly-yet-hip mother in-law received an upgrade message on her newish Dell. She dutifully clicked and entered her credit card information for an AV upgrade. Unfamiliar with the process, she didn’t know to click through and begin a download. A week later, after receiving the same message she tried again. This gave her card info again, this time for AV and for Norton Systemworks upgrade package (such a deal.) Still unaware of the need to download files, frustrated by the oblique instructions on Symantic’s web site, she gave up.

I found out about this a month later, by accident. Thankfully she knew to print out a hardcopy of the confirmation emails. I took these home, logged on and downloaded all the file she paid for (2 copies of antivirus, and Systemworks - some $100 dollars worth) and burned the install filed onto disk. I loaded one AV onto her machine, not without issues (waiting for her dial-up to update the virus definition files took HOURS!), and took the others home to install in my machine with her blessing.

The problem began with installing Norton Systemworks; AV installed fine. Systemworks failed when the final setup screen said to "click here" to complete configuration. The program locked up on my brand new XP pro machine. A search of Symantec’s tech support supplied me with two options: Pay by the minute to speak with a support "Specialist," or to try a fix (or hack, actually) involving changing Windows registry entries. (For the non technical of my readers, the Windows registry is the central-clearinghouse file holding all the system configuration settings. It’s quite huge, complicated, and purposely cryptic.) Being the local Alpha-geek, I went for the hack. Upon rebooting, the problem remained. Further investigation at tech support mentioned to download a Norton Uninstaller, which rid my computer of all installed Symantec products (I’m definitely keeping that one), including the working install of antivirus. Their suggestion continued that I installed the two programs in the wrong order! So, I reinstall Systemworks, then the antivirus, and find the same problem. An email detailing the situation was sent to tech support, who surprisingly replied within 24 hours. Their suggestion was useless, however. The condition they claimed was causing the FUBAR, didn’t exist.

I think of hapless users like my mother in-law spending a hundred dollars to get software that doesn’t install, their frustration of being told to uninstall, reinstall, delve into the intestines of Windows XP to no avail, followed by the insult of having to pay to talk to a human about the problem!

That is shameless predation. Not only is this company parasitic of an underground community of the ill-intentioned, but it preys on the ignorance of the average computer user. Buyer beware anything sold in a yellow box, or downloaded from Symantec. You have been warned.

My thinking is that companies that gain profit from mal-ware and viruses must be paying off the malcontents somehow. Their very survival demands it. And Microsoft, having yet another chance at making a secure platform out of their flagship operating system, failed again to put consumer’s interests foremost. The open source community showed everyone it can be done via the various Linux distributions. (Okay, they’re not bulletproof, but they’re not as Swiss-cheesy as Windows.) Conspiracy? You decide.

Greenpeace, that quasi-infamous bastion of eco-consciousness, is after Apple Corporation for lagging behind the rest of the computer industry in recycling efforts. Their take?

We love Apple. Apple knows more about "clean" design than anybody, right? So why do Macs, iPods, iBooks and the rest of their product range contain hazardous substances that other companies have agreed to abandon? A cutting edge company shouldn't be cutting lives short by exposing children in China and India to dangerous chemicals. That's why we Apple fans need to demand a new, cool product: a greener Apple.

Way to go! Finally, Greenpeace is finding a way to generate news that doesn't involve a harpoon. Dell and HP have stepped up to recycle old machines. IBM is getting subtle pressure from some shareholders, via a group called Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, to join the effort. Together, according to Computer Take-Back Campaign, the three companies have recycled over 116,600 tons of obsolete electronics since 2002. Apple, however, only managed to gather 1,500 tons.

As a hardware geek and a computer hobbyist, I have gathered my share of old parts that I loathe to chuck in the trash. (Anyone want a working Compaq 400 MHz box running Win95?) Monitors are especially troublesome to get rid of for me. Case in point: I just finished building my latest home-grown Frankenstein box and, in goofing about with the old troublesome machine managed to fry (D'oh!) both the power supply and the mainboard. What's a circuit nerd to do?

I'm sure there are a few others who cringe at the idea of landfilling their old components. Perhaps necessity finds them squeezing their eyes shut while hefting them in an unwatched dumpster behind the strip mall. Maybe by tossing the pieces away a small bit at a time will ease the conscious. There's a better way. Many states are waking up to the problem of mounds of toxic chemicals leeching from buried circuit boards to offer programs where the components can be recycled adequately.

Besides the option of trashing your machine, there are several organizations that would refurbish and redistribute a used computer for charities. People like myself may forget that many people, even in the US, are still without a computer.

Here's a partial list of resources in no particular order:

• eRecycle.org
• National Recycling Coalition
• Earth911.org
• Give A Computer.org
• Share the Technology

While big-time eco-orgs like Greenpeace can work the large picture, we small fries can and should do what we can to ensure a safer world for the future. And the next time you ponder new hardware, ask yourself if you want a iMac case made out of PVC sitting on your desk. Not all apples are green, it seems.

The problem I see with Microsoft as a monopoly is that the consumer is hurt by it in small, irritating ways. For example, I have a tiny shareware program called BigFix that is unfortunately necessary precisely because Microsoft has has no viable competition for most of its existence. Bigfix tracks upgrades to major software suites like windows, Office, Symantec anti-virus and others, lets me know via a popup message that a patch is available, then facilitates the upload and installation of the patch.

It’s a nice service, especially since its free to home users (corporations need to pay for a licence for large-scale versions.) What I find irritating is the fact we need this at all. Windows has been a staple of the desktop since 1989 (or so.) All that time, the product remains broken despite all the years of "development" since. Reports I see of Windows Vista lends me to believe that the gaping security holes will not be addressed in the forthcoming version. Vista will be nothing more than a cosmetic upgrade to keep up with Mac OS X, as noted at PC Magazine:

It’s too early to see how Vista measures up against competitive operating systems, but a lot of the more visible features are familiar. Apple’s Mac OS X "Tiger" already has many 3D visual effects and a search interface, Spotlight. Unix has had usable limited-rights accounts for years.

Okay: Anti-virus software is a billion dollar industry.  Some would argue that if Microsoft cleaned up its act, a good many people would be out of work. These same people would just use their talent on something else - that’s what technology is all about: innovation. Symantec, for one, could still reap a bundle on its suite of  backup and recovery tools, or its pcAnywhere communications program. They’ll recover just fine, thank you.

The consumer, who has as little time for cleaning digital windows as he has for cleaning real ones, is inconvenienced by all the squeegee work needed to keep a safe and working computer functioning. It is a disservice to everyone, and it is irresponsible of the richest man in the nation to ignore the issue. To me, more than any other reason, that is why competition against monopolies should be encouraged.

I missed another Friday Night Zen post. While you may be ambivalent, these are important to me because it is one thing about this blog that may be unique. At least, I haven’t yet found anyone else doing such. Too, it is a great exercise for me to re-affirm my convictions ant to learn how to communicate such slippery concepts. It’s sort of like the Jehovah Witness’ practice of going door to door to proselytize, but less annoying.

To the (imagined) few who like reading my Friday posts, I apologize. You are out there, aren’t you? The other week, and again last night, I became involved in a project that, while overtly consumer focused, has a Zen-like calming affect in me: Disassembling and reassembling computers.

After three long years of squirreling away spare Hamiltons, I bought an impressive pile of computer guts and am trying to recreate Frankenstein. (Its’ much easier extracting electronic intestines that it is to insert them.) I’ll spare you the boring specs. Once that is done, I’ll try to use the older, still useful parts to upgrade other machines in the family, rebuild my Linux box, and generally delay paternal responsibility as much as I can.

The tired, old adage is true: "You can separate the men from the boys by the price of their toys…" I’m okay with that.