Skip to content

Cameras, then and now…

Sometimes, in the everyday hustle and bustle of life, I sometimes overlook just how amazing the last twenty or so years have really been. This weekend, for instance, we undertook a (very often put-off but very important) project to electronically catalog all of our important assets, personal documents (passports, social security cards, etc.), and bank access info. I built a simple FileMaker Pro database off a standard template, and then started populating it with data—including images of various things. Once it’s done, we’re going to burn it to a CD, print out the contents, and take both the CD and the printout to a safety deposit box.

In the midst of all this, I was digging through the shelves, looking for potentially hidden assets, when I came upon an old camera of mine. No, not an old digital camera. An old consumer ‘point and shoot’ 35mm camera, the Pentax Zoom 105-R, which I bought in the fall of 1993. Back in the day, this was a really decent consumer 35mm camera, and relatively portable for its time. I seem to recall purchasing it for, among other things, it’s relatively small size.

But it was while snapping a photo of the old camera with my Canon PowerShot SD400 that I realized just how far cameras have come in the last 12 years:

cameras compared

[continue reading…]



For the long hint-less weekend…

Two extra days with no hints, and I doubt I'll write much on robservatory during that time ... so what to do, what to do!? To make up for the lack of hints and new writing from yours truly between now and Monday, here are some ways to amuse yourselves...

Have a great Thanksgiving, everyone!

-rob.



A strange error message

I use Butler as my launcher of choice, which means I launch most apps by typing Control-Space, then typing a few letters of the program’s name. Today, I made a typo and instead of launching my targeted app, Microsoft Graph launched. This little program is usually called from the Office apps, not as a standalone. So I wasn’t too surprised when the app displayed an error dialog on the screen. I was, however, surprised by the contents of the dialog:

Graph Error msg

Hmm, so I can only run Graph within another program, yet I’m given a Yes or No option when asked if it should quit now? Being the type of person I am, I chose No. Graph proceeded to open, and function in a most limited way—most features failed to work, but I was able to build a basic graph of sorts.

Seems to me that if the program is only going to work within another program, that dialog box should only have an “OK” button on it. Click it, and Graph should quit. Ah, the strangeness of error messages. Not quite as good as “No keyboard detected, press F1 to continue,” but it still made me chuckle a bit this morning.



Spotlight’s odd definition of a match

Tonight, while doing some testing for the ever-growing discussion about my Macworld Spotlight writeup, I stumbled across yet another ‘feature’ of Spotlight that I just don’t get. I’m think I remember reading this somewhere in the hazy past, but it slipped my mind when I wrote the long article for Macworld. But after playing around some more, this new ‘feature’ has jumped well up on my list of Spotlight annoyances.

So just what is this ‘feature’ that bothers me so? It’s this:

Spotlight will, by design, not find exactly what you asked it to find.

At this point, you might be saying ‘huh?,’ but let me explain by way of a simple demo.

[continue reading…]



More on Spotlight…

Macworld logoI know that not everyone that visits here reads my stuff over on Macworld's site, so I thought I'd put a quick note here, too. Over on Macworld today, you can read my latest opinion piece, A Dim View of Spotlight.

This piece is a follow-up to my original Shining the spotlight on Spotlight article, which (confusingly enough) appeared here on robservatory in May (I wrote it prior to the Macworld changeover). If you read the original, you can skip the whole "what I said back then" section in the new article, and just read through my latest thoughts on why Spotlight still isn't quite everything it could be.

Executive Summary: I don't like the way Spotlight works at all, but I still think it has great potential. Read the story for the specifics on why I feel that way!



A tale of three hardware interfaces…

As some of you may know, I’m relatively paranoid about backups—you can’t have too many, and you can’t make them often enough :). The macosxhints.com site is backed up twice a day via a set of scripts that use ssh and scp (and are scheduled via cron). For my personal machine, I use two external hard drives. The smaller of these two (an older version of this 250GB Maxtor drive) is used throughout the day to make backups of my key files. It also holds secondary copies of key things such as my iTunes music collection, iPhoto library, and digital video snippets. The larger of the two drives is a LaCie 500GB Triple Disk Extreme. At the end of each day, I run a full backup of the machine to the LaCie disk, and then power it down. But this article isn’t really about my backup strategy; it’s about the three interfaces on the Triple Disk Extreme (TDE), and a simplistic comparison of their performance on my machine (Dual 2.0GHz G5, first gen).

The TDE is so named due to its FireWire2, FireWire, and USB2 interfaces. A recent conversation with Chris Breen about FireWire vs. USB2 on the iPods led me to run a few tests on my hard drive, just to see how each interface performed. What got me started down this road is some stuff that Chris wrote in a couple of different iPod reviews:

In my tests, a dual-processor 2GHz Power Mac G5 filled a 6GB mini in 15 minutes and 17 seconds over USB 2.0. Using a FireWire connection shaved a scant 18 seconds off that time.

…

The nano is also quicker to sync than other iPods. I synced the same 903-track playlist on a 4GB nano and a 4GB iPod mini. It took 9 minutes and 15 seconds to sync the nano. The mini took nearly 7 minutes longer to sync, finally finishing the job in 16 minutes and 13 seconds.

So while USB 2.0 may not fare so well with other devices, as far as iPods go, syncing performance doesn’t appear to be a problem.

I thought I’d use my TDE to run a few tests in the Finder, just to see how things compared there. Read on for my results…

[continue reading…]



Protect your iPod Nano’s screen…

Apparently the new iPod Nano is very susceptible to screen scratches (The Register article, Apple Discussions). My wife and I just bought a white Nano to replace her Mini, so these stories concerned me quite a bit—the last thing you’d want is to have the already-dimunitive screen scratched to the point where text and images are hard to discern. People are talking about returning their devices, class action lawsuits, etc. I really like the Nano, and would rather not return it. And since ours isn’t yet scratched, I thought I’d try some preventative medicine.

Knowing that it will be a while yet before any customized Nano screen protectors and/or cases ship, I took a (very minor) risk and thought I’d try to make my own. I started, of course, with someone else’s handiwork—these Treo screen protectors. These are probably the best screen protectors I’ve seen for the Treo; they’re basically invisible, and they don’t permanently mar your Treo’s screen if/when you remove them. I had a couple left over from my Treo (as the protectors come in a three-pack), so I did a bit of measuring and got out the scissors. A minute or so later, I had my completed Nano screen protector. I peeled off the backing, stuck it to the Nano’s front, and it worked perfectly — it basically disappeared once placed (though I intentionally cut the border slightly larger than the Nano’s screen). It’s hard to take pictures of, but I tried my best; click on either image below for a larger version:

Nano unlitNano lit

As you can see, the protector is nearly invisible (and yes, the perfectionist in me has since gone back and re-centered it horizontally) whether the Nano is on or off. Since I did leave a slight border around the screen area, that edge is visible in the shots above (but it actually looks sort of natural there). Had I chosen to make the cover the exact size of the screen area, it would be even less visible. However, by leaving a border, I’ve made it easier to remove the cover in the future without risk of scratching the screen itself.

One of the reasons I like this screen protector a lot is that it’s easily removable and cleanable. The instructions state that you can lift the cover with a piece of scotch tape, but I’ve had better luck carefully sliding the edge of a sharp knife under the plastic, then prying up the corner. Once removed, you can wash the cover off with water to remove any dust, let it dry, and then put it back in place. I’ve had this one on and off a few times now, and (so far) it hasn’t left any marks on either the Nano’s case or screen.

This may not be a perfect solution, and who knows how well it will hold up over time, but for now, it seems like a reasonable investment to keep the Nano’s screen in scratch-free condition. As always, though, your mileage may vary and proceed at your own risk :).



When is a sorted list not a sorted list?

One of the things I like the most about OS X 10.4 is Automator, Apple’s new tool to help automate routine tasks. There’s an amazing amount of power hiding beneath a relatively simple user interface. The fact that users can create their own Automator actions (not workflows, but the actual actions that show up in the Action column), as described in this hint published today, means that Automator can be easily extended by those with a bit of programming experience.

Considering both Actions and Workflows, there are already over 100 entries on Apple’s Automator Actions download page, which is quite cool. (This does, however, pale in comparison to the 1,289 Dashboard widgets currently available for download.) In any event, Automator is a good tool to have around, and I’ve already put it to use on a number of occasions.

Automator sort orderThere is, however, something that irks me about its interface. Consider the screenshot at right of the Actions associated with the Finder Library entry (hover and click to zoom).

If you scan the list of Actions, you’ll find that they’re not in alphabetical order. Well, they’re sort of alphabetized. Look a bit closer, and you’ll see that the list is actually sorted by the relevance indicator, just like the search results in Mac Help. While this makes sense in Mac Help, as you’re searching for something that’s not definite, it makes no sense at all in this context. What is this list relevant to? The Finder Library entry? If that’s the case, then how come “Get Selected Finder Items” sits at the top of the list with 100% while “Filter Finder Items” (which sounds very similar) scores 0% and is sitting down near the bottom?

Within the relevance sort, the sort is then alphabetic, so with some practice, you can eventually find what you’re looking for. But Apple’s use of the seemingly-undefined relevance criteria makes the task much more difficult than it should be. Consider the iTunes Library entry; it has four levels of relevance, which means the alpha sort restarts four times—and one of those times is for one lousy item! It takes way too long to find a given entry in a list ordered in this manner, and there’s no reason for it at all that I can see.

You might think that using the Applications Library entry (the first one in the list) would solve the problem, since it selects all actions and displays them at once. But no, even in this situation, the relevance sort order is maintained! As a result, I never use this entry, as it’s really, really hard to find anything.

The solution seems simple to me: Apple, please sort the Automator actions by alpha, not relevance. If you’re going to insist on a sort by relevance, then at least give us the option to sort by alpha instead…

Sept 16th Update: I emailed Sal Soghoian, the AppleScript Product Manager at Apple (and all-around good guy!) to ask for some clarification. I asked “can you shed any light on exactly how Automator sorts its action lists?” He told me that Automator does indeed sort on relevance, and that “relevance is based on input/output types, keywords, keyword order, categories, and the related actions parameter.” He also mentioned that an alpha sort has been a popular request, so hopefully we'll see it soon...


A very cool retro CD label…

There's a Portland radio station, KINK FM 102, that has a fair number of live 'in the studio' performances each year. As a result, for each of the last eight years, they've released a compilation CD with the best of those live performances. Money earned from the CD sales goes to SMART--Start Making A Reader Today, a program that helps at-risk youth develop their reading skills. As such, I feel good about purchasing the CD each year; the fact that there are usually a fair number of tracks I like (almost all are acoustic with simple piano and/or guitar accompanying the voices) is just an added bonus.

So what's all this have to do with technology? Well, this year's CD, Kink Live 8, has one of the most unique, creative 'labels' I've ever seen. Below are small images of both the front and back of the CD:

Kink Live 8 frontKink Live 8 back

Click on either image for a larger version in a new window, and you can see the details in the front--it looks just like an old vinyl record (for those of you old enough to remember those). What you can't really see is how much it actually feels like a record, too. The grooves are there, there are smooth areas between each song, and the overall texture is very similar to what I remember of vinyl. The back side is just pure black, and polished to a near mirror-like finish. I didn't even know such things were available, but Froogle quickly pointed out my lack of knowledge on the subject.

That's it; I just wanted to point out a really cool CD label design (and plug a good cause, if you happen to like any of those bands and are in the greater Portland area). It's a nice change of pace from the image- and text-heavy labels that I usually see.



And then there were seven…

A while back, I wrote about the many faces of Apple’s OS X applications. At the time of that writing, I identified six-ish unique interface looks:

  1. Old School Metal
  2. Aqua
  3. Smooth Metal 1
  4. Smooth Metal 2
  5. Pro Interface
  6. Other/No Interface

With the release of iTunes 5.0, it seems there are now seven interfaces. For lack of a better description, I guess I would call this one Smooth Metal 3—it seems to incorporate aspects of both Smooth Metal 1 and Smooth Metal 2, yet it doesn’t exactly match the look of either of its cousins. Its predecessor, iTunes 4.9, fell squarely in the Old School Metal bucket. Here’s how the new iTunes interface looks, compared to the old:

Small old iTunesSmall new itunes

On the left is iTunes 4.9; on the right is iTunes 5.0. Click either image for a full-size version of each screenshot. There are many differences between the two interfaces, some obvious and some not so obvious. Keep reading to see some of the changes in detail, as well as my opinion on the new iTunes look.

[continue reading…]