Showing posts with label Apple. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Apple. Show all posts

Monday, October 4, 2010

iTunes 10

Everyone is allowed to make mistakes from time to time, so long as they learn from them. Even the best of us make mistakes, and in this case the best of us is Steve Jobs. Yes, I am a long-time fan of Steve Jobs. Pretty much every good thing to ever come out of Apple was his idea. Even better, Jobs is responsible for making Pixar the company it is today, having bought the company from Lucasfilm, then partnering with Disney. This is largely what has made Apple the media powerhouse it is today, which includes iTunes. iTunes is not only the best media player available, but it has the easiest user interface I've ever used. It's easy because it's simple and intuitive, but powerful.

But the new version goes too far. When you have a perfect interface, taking buttons away doesn't make it simpler, it makes it more confusing. Also, the convenient colorful interface made navigation easy, but now iTunes is... gray. Just gray. It's surprising what a difference the color made!

So what now? Switch to something else? No thank you. I've used
WinAmp, RealPlayer, and Windows Media Player, and even at its worst iTunes is far more powerful and easy to use. But I want my color back!

Here's the good news: You can fix it, partly. Not entirely. If you use Windows, I don't know a solution other than to switch to Mac (but I'm sure there is one); but if you are on MacOSX, it's really easy. Download
this file I found and unzip it. Quit iTunes 10 and find it in the Finder, right-click on it, and select "Show Package Contents". Navigate to the "Resources" folder, and move the file named "iTunes.rsrc" to your desktop in case you need it again. There's a new file with the same name in the folder you just downloaded and unzipped; put it in the "Resources" folder where the original file was. Close the windows, and open iTunes back up. It's not a complete fix, but at least the playlist icons are colorful again.

Now I have something else for you guys... What do you think of the new iTunes logo? I hate it. I understand Jobs' reasoning... we're moving beyond CDs, so let's get rid of the CD icon. But the old one was recognizable and iconic. The new one is bland and... Windowsy. Really, the first time I saw it, on a friends laptop, I had no idea it was iTunes. It's not ugly, it's just stupid. So just to rub it in Jobs' face even more, I made my own iTunes logo. What's more obsolete than CDs? 8-tracks, cassette tapes... vinyl! Here is my gift to my readers, my homemade iTunes Vinyl logo:


On a Mac, download the .png and open it in Preview, "Select All" from the "Edit" menu, and "Copy". Find iTunes 10 in the Finder, and "Get Info" from the "File" menu. Click on the lame logo in the upper-left corner of the Info window so it's highlighted, and hit "Command-V" to paste it. The old logo will still be in your dock, but you can drag iTunes out of the dock, then open iTunes, right-click the icon in the dock and select "Keep in Dock".

I think changing icons in Windows is pretty easy, too, but I don't remember the process.

The downside is that you may have to do this again when you update iTunes... but there's hope. One thing I respect about Apple is that the company learns from mistakes. The Windows-looking logo is probably here to stay, but we may get a better interface back. Remember the iPod Shuffle? It's known for being the smallest .mp3 player, but a couple years ago they took it too far. To make it even smaller, they took away the buttons, making it unusable without special headphones. This was a bad move, but Apple learned and the new iPod Shuffle has the old buttons back. So keep hope!

Monday, May 4, 2009

Live Free or Die Harder With a Vengeance

I've been getting a lot of hate mail from my fans lately saying "Why aren't you reviewing movies anymore? We're tired of this politics crap, tell us what movies we should watch so we can watch more movies!" Okay, okay, fine! Just stop sending me the hate mail! I know, I'm way behind with the movie reviews, especially considering the massive amount of time I've had on my hands lately to watch them. So here come one review of four movies!

About a month ago I had myself a Die Hard movie marathon. I was never interested in the Die Hard movies until I saw Live Free or Die Hard, and was impressed. So I got my hands on the other movies, and watched all four back to back in one day. That's right, in a twelve-hour shift I have enough down time to watch four movies relatively undistracted, and even get paid all the while because I'm working, too. And guess what? All four Die Hard movies are awesome, especially the first and fourth ones. Except the last one they are very heavy on the language, and the first movie has brief and completely unnecessary nudity near the beginning; but other than that, that is all you need to know. No need to read further (though you're welcome to), if you haven't seen them yet, don't wait as long as I did, go rent them and watch them. They are worth the time.


I originally avoided them because they looked like typical action movies with a predictable plot and unbelievable explosions and no real point except to show cool fight scenes. Well, they are your typical action movie, but Die Hard doesn't follow any formula, Die Hard is the formula used by so many action movies since. With this movie it's fresh and new, not as unbelievable as it could be, and Bruce Willis and Alan Rickman are believable in their roles. With action movies (and especially superhero movies), what really makes or breaks it is the villain. The reason most of the James Bond movies are merely fun, and no more, is that if the villains weren't completely incompetent James Bond would be dead about fifty times now. There's nothing satisfying about watching a hero, no matter how cool, go up against a villain who isn't truly threatening. Bruce Willis makes a great hero, doing an especially good job being a "regular guy" (well, a detective, and really tough, but deep down just a regular guy) who becomes a hero only by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Even better, Alan Rickman makes such a believable, menacing villain, that it is very satisfying to see him brought down by the hero (even with 1988 special effects).

The overall plotline is mostly predictable, but along the way individual scenes throw some pretty fun curve balls, and there's great humor, too. The action is intense, and while there are the expected overdone Hollywood explosions, most of the action and stunts are plausible and the danger seems real without becoming an overload for the audience. Many action movies fail by being all climax all the time, and by the end are boring no matter how many bullets are flying, and others fail by trying to have too much deep dialogue and social commentary from the characters, and are boring that way. The pacing in Die Hard is perfect. I was riveted the whole time, and satisfied by the end.

The only real downsides were some lame acting from some of the supporting cast, and I can't help seeing the guy who played the cop who helps Bruce Willis and thinking "Family Matters". I can't take that guy seriously no matter what, and he's not that great an actor. Worse, Die Hard makes the classic movie mistake of having the cops bungle everything from start to finish because the police captain has an ego and insists he knows everything despite getting the inside info from Bruce Willis. Sure, this happens in real life, too, but wouldn't it be nice in a movie to see competent hero, competent villain, and competent cops? (Terminator 2 had that, now that I think of it... another great movie.) But even accounting for these negatives, it is still one of the best action movies I've seen, and well deserving of it's classic status.


Die Hard 2: Die Harder was also fun, but was in my opinion the weakest of the series. That's not a bad thing, Die Hard is a tough act to follow up. How do you raise the bar? They tried, but it didn't really work. It had it's plot twists, backstabbing and betrayal, and plenty of action, and was definitely a fun movie and didn't feel like a waste of time despite not having as solid a plot as the original. What made it work was Bruce Willis. The villain was pretty good, but no Hans Gruber, but Bruce was still Bruce, and fun to watch. Though there is a scene where he fails to save quite a lot of people and starts crying, and that's a bit uncomfortable. The incompetent cop formula is even stronger in this movie, though, and definitely getting old. You can skip this movie and not be lost in the next two, but I still recommend it. It is above average for an action movie.

One thing I liked about it is how well it made the point about the media in its quest for sensational, dramatic stories, does the public no favor and can make things worse. My memory is a bit rusty (that's what I get watching all four at once in one day and waiting so long to blog it, I guess), but I think the first Die Hard made that point as well, but it is in this movie that it sticks in my mind. It reminds me of a real-life example that happened ten years ago: the school shooting in Columbine. A friend of mine sent me a link to a very interesting interview with someone who studied that event, and one of the most interesting aspects is how the myths connected to the shooting originated from CNN coverage within hours of the shooting. Children in the classrooms were watching what was happening on TV, and as they came out they were interviewed by reporters as if they were eyewitnesses who knew the shooters personally when all they were doing is repeating what they'd just seen on TV and immediately reinforcing the myths. That's sort of a tangent, but it is one of the more interesting parts of the movie seeing the attitude of the news reporters trying to get the story that will make their career, oblivious to the panic they are causing and the leverage they are giving to the terrorists.


Die Hard With a Vengeance was a lot of fun, much better than the second movie. This one brings in Samuel L. Jackson as a character named Zeus, which is awesome by itself. Zeus is a very racist black man who only begins helping Bruce Willis to save his black neighborhood from unwanted negative publicity. When a terrorist sets off a bomb and threatens to detonate more unless Bruce Willis's character walks through Harlem wearing a sandwich board with offensive racial slurs on it, Zeus saves his life explaining that the last thing his neighborhood needs is another headline about black gang members killing a white cop.

I was dubious at first, letting the character chemistry between Samuel Jackson and Bruce Willis be enough to make the movie worth watching, but disappointed that it was just a typical sadistic villain out for revenge coming up with silly impossible scenarios to keep the cops guessing and the hero running. By the end I was impressed, though, because there is much more going on than that, and it starts from the very beginning though you don't see it. Or maybe I just didn't see it. This movie was also great in that finally we're allowed to see competent cops, making honest mistakes because even though they've thought it through they can still be wrong, not just stubborn and stupid in the face of obvious facts. There is also a very effective scene as a school is evacuated due to a bomb threat, where the bomb expert stays in the school trying to diffuse a bomb knowing he has no chance of success and is going to die, but refusing to leave as long as there are kids in the school. This was a really great movie.


Not as good as the last one, though! Live Free or Die Hard was the movie that got me interested in the series in the first place, and it was just as good the second time. All of the Die Hard movies are very patriotic (it is still amazing to me that Hollywood can pump out movies that clearly demonstrate why we can't negotiate with an enemy bent on our destruction, then they turn around and denounce the "illegal" war on terrorism), but this one is the most so. It also is the first of the series to moderate the language to the point that it is not rated "R", though there's an "Unrated" version that is hilarious in that language is added in when it is clear the character is not really speaking. It is also the first of the series that does not take place on Christmas; instead this movie takes place on Independence Day. Bruce Willis is much older in this film, and they work with that fact very well in the film. His partner in this film is the Mac guy from Apple's "Get a Mac" commercials, and plays a very convincing hacker, and is great in the film.

The story is great, the characters are great, the fights are very cool and above average for realism in an action movie, and there are some extremely cool stunts, not all of which strain your suspension of disbelief (though some do). My favorite part was watching throughout the movie as Bruce Willis is so impatient with the nerds he has to work with to stop the terrorists in this movie, especially when they meet the biggest nerd of all, who lives in his mother's basement and answers only to "Warlock". I don't know if I can say if this is my favorite or the first is my favorite, because they are very different movies; but especially if language in a movie bothers you, or you refuse to watch an "R" rated movie, Live Free or Die Hard is the one I would recommend the most.

Okay, four down, about two dozen movie reviews to go... another time.

Tuesday, July 8, 2008

New Computer Lab Awesomeness. Also, Sarcasm.

I meant to post this a week ago, but I'm very lazy.  Every Tuesday this semester I work in the geology computer lab in the Romney building at BYU-Idaho.  Three weeks ago today, I helped install new computers.  The recent appearance of several new iMacs in the library gave me a spark of hope that we'd get iMacs here, but it was never that likely and it didn't happen.  But any upgrade from the crappy computers we had before is good, right?  Until last Tuesday, two weeks after installing the new computers, this is what the lab looked like:

Out of the fifteen new computers, three were dead for two weeks (bad hard drives, I think).  That's a 20% failure rate.  Fortunately, we have a highly competent IT department here at BYU-Idaho. Here's an example of their amazing ability to think things through:

The old computers were HPs, and they fit in these small metal cubby-like boxes attached underneath the table.  The newer, faster Dells come in much bigger boxes (why anyone still makes such a bulky computer I don't understand), that don't fit in the metal cubbies.  Being very concerned that the computers might get kicked over if they weren't secure, the IT guys didn't want to set them on the floor.  So naturally they stuffed them in the cubbies:
Notice it's not even sitting in the box, but the top is scraping.

This was done before I got there to help; I just set up the monitors and broke down the boxes.  I would not have participated in this  Once all the hardware was set up, they started setting up the software, only to find out they'd done something wrong on all fifteen computers and they couldn't fix it using the network.  So they pulled each computer out of the metal cubbyhole, scratching them up even more and even popping apart pieces of the flimsy plastic box these things are made in.  They had to take each one to be "re-imaged," whatever that means.  So it was three days before any of them was working at all.

So all is well now.  Except it isn't, because they installed a virus (Windows) as an operating system, so things are as lame as before, just on a bigger, better screen.  The bright spot in all this is that I don't have to bother with Vista yet.  I was worried, since they came with Vista, but then they down(?)graded to XP.  XP or Vista, Macs ironically still run either one faster than anyone else.  Even the laptops.

But these new computers are at least as irritating as the old ones, and they have a new problem that happens every time anyone tries to use Google Earth.  It's especially bad since so many Geology 102 Lab students have to come in and do their assignments with Google Earth.  In theory, you should just be able to go into BlackBoard (I refuse to call it I-Learn), find the right .kmz file for the assignment, click on it and choose "Open." That used to open the file in Google Earth.  Now you get this message:


If you hit "OK" you get this message:
Then this message:
Tell me, Bill Gates, why your amazing operating system wants me to install Google Earth when it's already installed on the machine?  Or is it just trying to install the .kmz file?  Why can't it do that, then?

So you have to go back to BlackBoard and click "Save" this time, putting the file on the desktop.  Double-clicking on the file to open it gives the exact same three messages.  To get it to work, you have to open Google Earth and then open the file from within Google Earth.  But every time you open Google Earth, this message comes up:
Followed by this subtly different message:
Followed by this message that tells you about the previous two messages:
But then Google Earth opens anyway, with no problems other than the time I opened it and Earth wasn't there.  So why give the messages in the first place?  Why can't I just open the file and Google Earth pops up?  It really makes me appreciate my Mac.

Windows isn't the only problem on these machines, though.  The IT guys were polite enough to think that since Firefox is so superior to Internet Explorer that they would force us all to use Firefox.  There were three Firefox logos on the Desktop.  Notice the one that says Internet Explorer under it:

The Internet Explorer shortcut with the Firefox logo opens.... Firefox.  Internet Explorer isn't in the Start menu either.  You have to do a search for it, or try to find it on the C drive.  I'm all for options; if someone thinks Firefox is the best browser, I think they should have the option to use it.  But if they can use Firefox, why can't I use Safari?  I don't understand what's so cool about Firefox.  Internet Explorer doesn't bother me, but I prefer Safari, and I'd like the option to use an Apple product rather than a Microsoft one (not being Microsoft is the only advantage I see to Firefox).

Well, at least the monitors are nice; 22-inches I think.  Of course, iMacs wouldn't have cost much more if any, would last longer before needing to be replaced, would run Windows just fine if not better, plus there wouldn't have been the issue of the metal cubbyholes, since the whole computer fits neatly inside the monitor.  Also, there would be fewer cables to trip on, and without the cubbyholes, we could fit five more computers in there, one on each row.

Bonus points to whomever can tell me what's odd about this picture.

Overall, it's probably a good upgrade anyway.  The monitors are twice as big as the old ones, and while these new computers don't do anything any faster than the old ones yet, we'll see if there's a notable performance increase this Fall when I learn GIS. Of course, I'll have to rely on other people's opinions, since I never used GIS on the old ones.

I'm done ranting now.