3.10.2008
|
Link to
this post
Anyone that has ever read anything I've wrote about technology knows that I am not about buying the latest and greatest. Yet, sometimes even I find buying the latest technology hard to resist.
My generous parents bought me a new Canon SD1000 digital camera for my birthday in November. I immediately started searching for a nice big SD card that would hold all of the pictures and videos of Geeky Jock Jr. I found a 4GB card for only $25 after rebate and went for it. At the time, this was an incredible price. Most 4GB cards were going for around $40. I thought "we're taking lots of pictures and videos of Owen so we'll need all that space." Of course, since we regularly transfer pictures to the computer, I doubt we've ever even used 1GB of the card.
If we were going on vacation and I knew we'd be taking hundreds of pictures and lots of videos without being able to transfer to a computer, then the 4GB card would have been worth it. But we didn't. I would have been better off paying $10 for a 1GB card because that was all I needed up to this point.
I've recently seen 4GB cards for under $20, and 2GB cards for around $10 without rebates.
Learn from my mistake: When buying any type of digital storage (memory cards, hard drives, etc.), only buy as much storage as you can possibly use in the next six months. Prices fall so fast that even if you get a great deal, by the time you can take advantage of all those gigs, current prices will probably be half what you paid.
|
The Ultimate Steal - MS Office Ultimate 2007 for only $59.95!
|
2.23.2008
|
Link to
this post
Countless people have asked me over the years: "Does Word, Excel, and PowerPoint come with my new computer?" My answer is always no, no matter where they bought the computer from. Those programs are part of Microsoft Office, which is very expensive. All the computer vendors will offer it to you, but at a significant cost. Many new computers come with Microsoft Works for free, which includes the full version of Microsoft Word and very simple spreadsheet and database programs.
Now Microsoft is offering Office Ultimate 2007 for only $59.95 in their "Ultimate Steal" promotion. The retail price of Office Ultimate is $679.99! Ultimate is the flagship version of Office which includes Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Outlook (email), Groove (collaboration), Publisher, OneNote, InfoPath, and Access (database). To be eligible for the special price, you have to meet two conditions: - You must hold a valid email address at a U.S. educational institution ending in .edu
- Be actively enrolled with at least 0.5 course load.
If you are a college student, take advantage now. If not, find someone who has a .edu email address and ask them to help you out. This deal is only good until April 30, 2008. Why is Microsoft doing this? My guess is that software piracy is so rampant in colleges that Microsoft figured they'd at least get paid something. Plus, getting a huge installed user base means that Office will continue to be a mainstay on home and business computers for many years to come.
Seize the deal! Get Microsoft® Office Ultimate 2007 for just $59.95
Still skeptical? Go to this page for the official details.
|
If You're Thinking You Want to Upgrade to Vista - Don't
|
4.08.2007
|
Link to
this post
Several people have asked me if I'm upgrading to the new Windows operating system - Vista. The answer is no. I won't be running Windows Vista until I buy a new PC, which hopefully won't be for a while.
The reasons why I'm not upgrading are quite simple. First, I'm not a glutton for punishment. Upgrading to a new operating system is something you do only if you have to - kind of like a root canal. It involves making sure your computer meets the minimum requirements to run it. Believe it or not, my computer doesn't have the horsepower to run the whiz-bang features of Vista. Upgrading an operating system also involves making sure that the drivers for all the hardware on the inside, and the peripherals on the outside, have updated drivers for the new operating system. Most major manufacturers are releasing Vista drivers, but I wouldn't expect new drivers for that ancient scanner you're holding onto.
Second, there isn't any specific feature in Vista that would compel me to go through the cost and hassle to upgrade. Sure, Vista looks really great, but that novelty would soon wear off. There are several incremental upgrades to programs that I never use like Paint, Wordpad, Windows Movie Maker, and Sound Recorder. The new additions to Vista are all things that you can get through free, third-party applications for Windows XP.
If you're thinking you need to upgrade to Vista, save yourself the hassle and wait until you get it preinstalled on your next new PC. If your current PC isn't performing like it used to, you're much better off doing a free and simple upgrade - reformatting and reinstalling Windows XP. If you're vigilant with keeping your antivirus and anti-spyware up-to-date, and are careful about what software you install, Windows XP offers rock-solid stability.
|
I Finally Decided on a 42" Plasma - Here's Why
|
3.17.2007
|
Link to
this post
I've been shopping for an HDTV for probably close to two years. It wasn't until around Thanksgiving of 2006 that I got the OK from the treasurer (my wife) to actually buy one. I figured I'd be able find one on Black Friday, but I wasn't up for camping out next to Best Buy in the middle of winter. Then I figured I'd get a great deal over Christmas. Surprisingly, prices on HDTVs remained relatively stable. So I decided I'd wait for the Superbowl sales. Even advertised prices didn't drop that much during the Superbowl sales, but I found an unadvertised sale at CircuitCity.com and went for it.
I ended up buying a 42" LG plasma (model 42PC3D) and I absolutely love it. Ever since I started shopping for an HDTV, I had convinced myself that I would buy a DLP or LCD projection HDTV. These types of HDTVs use different technologies to create the picture, but they are similar in picture quality, cabinet depth (12-16 inches), and price. I was willing to forgo the flatness of a plasma or LCD for the lower price.
There were three things that changed my mind. First, the viewing angles on DLPs and LCD projection HDTVs did not pass the wife test. For her, the limited horizontal and vertical viewing angles of these TVs were unacceptable. The viewing angles are not near as bad as the big CRT projection types, but they couldn't compete with plasma.
Second, the more I read reviews of DLP and LCD projection HDTVs, the less I liked them. These TVs use a very bright bulb to illuminate the screen, much like the bulbs in LCD projectors. These bulbs get very hot, so they require a fan. Many reviewers complained of fan noise. These bulbs also have a limited lifespan. They are designed to last for around 6,000 hours, although I read dozens of reviews from people whose bulbs burned out much earlier than that. The problem is, these bulbs aren't cheap. They start at around $400. The older your TV gets, the scarcer the bulb becomes and they just get more and more expensive. This completely negates the lower costs of these TVs compared to plasmas and LCDs, many of which are rated to last 60,000 hours until they reach half brightness.
Finally, the price of plasmas has dropped significantly. They dropped so far, in fact, for 42" and 50" models that if you find a good deal they are about the same price as quality DLP and LCD projection. Of course, the advantage is that you can hang a plasma on a wall. I might have been able to find a great deal on a DLP, but I know I'd have had buyer's remorse in six months when I wish I could hang a nice, thin TV on the wall.
You may wonder why I didn't go with an LCD. This just came down to personal preference. I think LCD looks great, but I find the picture to be a little too soft and I can sometimes make out the screen door effect of the individual pixels. I think plasmas have the smoothest, most life-like picture and their viewing angles are as good as the old fashioned CRT tube TV. Plus, plasmas no longer suffer from the burn-in issues that were prevelant in early models.
One final note: If you buy a new HDTV, do not buy cables or a mount from a retail store. The markup on these items is astronomical. Get a universal mount online for $30-70. Buy your HDMI cables online for less than $20. A great site to buy all of this stuff is monoprice.com.
If you're wondering why I didn't buy a 1080p (or Full HD) HDTV, check out this article.
|
Every 1080p HDTV Should Come With These Disclaimers
|
|
Link to
this post
If you've been looking to buy an HDTV, you've no doubt seen those labeled as 1080p or Full HD. I get irritated every time I hear these terms because they're very deceptive. Every 1080p HDTV that is sold today should be labeled with the following disclaimers:
- This TV supports an HDTV format (1080p) that no broadcaster in the US is currently broadcasting in, and probably won't be broadcasting in for several years.
- The only 1080p content currently available is on Blu-Ray and HD-DVD discs.
If those disclaimers don't mean anything to you, let me explain. All HDTV content is broadcast in either 720p or 1080i. 720p means 720 lines of resolution in a progressive format. Progressive means all of those 720 lines are drawn on every split-second refresh of the screen. 1080i means 1,080 lines of resolution in an interlaced format. An interlaced format, which is how regular TV has been broadcast in for decades, means that on every refresh of the screen, only half the lines are drawn - the odd lines on one, then the even on the next. This happens so quickly that your eyes see it as a complete picture. Some networks broadcast in 720p, others in 1080i. 1080p, or Full HD as it's also being called, is supposed to be the best of both worlds - the higher resolution of 1080i with the progressive format of 720p. But, as the disclaimer mentions, nobody anywhere is broadcasting in 1080p and none plan to for several years.
So why would you want to pay more money for a TV that displays a format that no one is broadcasting in, you ask? The answer is: there is no compelling reason. 1080p TVs will display content in 720p or 1080i format, they just convert the signal much like an HDTV that natively supports 720p will display 1080i content by converting it. Converting a signal doesn't increase resolution, so broadcast content on a 1080p TV will not look any better than a typical HDTV. In fact, it may look slightly worse because of the conversion. And don't expect networks to start broadcasting 1080p content anytime soon. Many are still upgrading their systems to support current HDTV formats. Cable and satellite companies already have to compress their HDTV signals significantly in order to fit all their content into the limited bandwidth they have.
The one place that you can find 1080p content is on Blu-ray and HD-DVD discs. These two competing formats are the high definition successors to DVDs. Both are competing hard to become the standard, and at this point there is no clear winner. Chances are, only one of them will succeed. The cheapest Blu-ray or HD-DVD players are around $500.
So what does all this mean? You can pay more for a 1080p HDTV, but the only way that you can take advantage of it is if you are watching Blu-Ray or HD-DVD movies. Even if you watched a Blu-Ray or HD-DVD on a 1080p HDTV, you'd be extremely hard-pressed to tell the difference if you watched it on a quality 720p or 1080i HDTV. In fact, people that test HDTVs for a living have a hard time telling a difference (see this great article).
I just bought a 720p plasma and have no regrets (read about that decision here). If you're shopping for an HDTV, save your money and take a pass on the 1080p or Full HD sets.
|
Tag and Search Your Digital Pics Within Windows XP
|
8.13.2006
|
Link to
this post
What's the best way to organize, tag, and search your digital photos? I've pondered this question for years, trying many different methods. But I think I've found the best free solution, and it can all be done with two simple add-ins that integrate right into Windows.
There are literally hundreds of programs that will help you to organize, view, and search your photos. I've tried dozens of them including Picasa, Preclick Organizer, ACDsee, and Photoshop Album. Most of these programs are very capable at helping you view, do simple edits, tag, and organize your digital photos. There are two problems with these programs for me. First, for some reason I have a problem with opening and running a program just to download and tag my digital photos. Some of these programs can take a while to load and seem well, bloated. Second, nearly all photo organizers tag photos in their own proprietary format. This means that if you ever decide to move to another photo organizer, you have to re-tag all of your photos. This could take a very long time if you have tens of thousands of pics.
If you are wondering what I mean by "tagging" your photos, let me explain. Digital pictures contain metadata - that is, non-picture data that is embedded in the picture file. Think of metadata as the information you'd write on the back of an analog photo. Nearly every digital camera inserts metadata into each picture file that contains information like when the picture was taken, the camera model, camera settings when the picture was taken, and more. This is called EXIF data and nearly any photo management program out there (including Windows XP) can read EXIF data. You can also include many other types of metadata such as keywords, categories, photographer, copyright, or just about anything else. Some programs can read this metadata, others can't.
Luckily, there are a couple standards for picture metadata - IPTC and XMP. IPTC stands for International Press Telecommunications Council, which is a news organization that originally developed a framework for describing pictures. IPTC has some compatibility issues and has now matured into XMP, or eXtensible Metadata Platform. This is more than you need to know, but if you really want to learn more about this, see this site.
The difficulty in this whole situation is finding programs that can edit IPTC and XMP-compatible metadata (so you can add keywords, notes, etc.) and search this data so you can find the pictures you're looking for. If you can edit XMP-compatible metadata, you can be almost certain that the data won't become obsolete or proprietary. Many programs can read and search XMP metadata, and many more will support it in the near future.
There are two free programs available right now that meet nearly all the criteria I was looking for in an image organization solution. They support XMP metadata and integrate right within Windows. The first is PixVue. Pixvue installs itself in the Windows right-click menu for pictures. PixVue has a lot of powerful options, not the least of which is the ability to add XMP-compatible keywords to pictures. PixVue even inserts small icons on image thumbnails to indicate which types of metadata a picture contains. To add keywords, just select a picture or pictures, right-click, and choose Annotate > Add. Click the Keywords tab and insert as many keywords as you like.
All of this would be useless if you couldn't search this metadata. The only free program I could find that searches XMP metadata is Windows Desktop Search. The key is to download and install the free iFilterShop XMP Filter add-in that gives WDS the ability to search this data. In my experience, WDS with the XMP add-in is very effective in quickly finding pictures with keywords tagged with PixVue.
I've found the combination of PixVue and WDS with the XMP add-in to be an excellent solution to tagging and searching my thousands of digital pictures. In my extensive Google-searching, this was the only free solution I came across (although I never saw them described together). It appears that XMP metadata is becoming more widely accepted, so any tagging should be compatible in future image management programs. I'm far from an expert on this subject, so I'd love to hear your comments about this or any other free (or cheap) image tagging and searching solutions.
|
Make Your LCD Monitor the Best It Can Be
|
8.09.2006
|
Link to
this post
Have you seen how cheap LCD monitors have gotten lately? 19-inch models are down to well under $200 without rebates these days. As LCDs become more and more ubiquitous, I'm amazed at how often I see people running their computers at a resolution that is different than the native resolution of their LCD monitor. When you do this, the LCD looks terrible - everything looks a little fuzzy.
If you're wondering what the heck I'm talking about, let me explain. LCD monitors are different than their CRT predecessors. CRT monitors can run at nearly any resolution and look fine. The electron gun behind the screen just "paints" more or less lines on the screen depending on the resolution you choose. LCDs, on the other hand, are called fixed pixel displays. This means that they have a fixed number of pixels that make up the screen. A 15-inch LCD usually has 1,024 pixels horizontally and 768 pixels vertically, which means it has a native resolution of 1024x768. 17- and 19-inch models usually have a native resolution of 1280x1024. If you run your computer at a resolution other than the native resolution, the number of pixels your computer is pushing out is different than the number of pixels that the LCD has. So what does the LCD do? It does the best it can to make the picture fit, but because it's getting a different number of pixels it has to interpolate, or guess, the best way to render the picture. Thus, you get a fuzzy picture.
.gif) It should be obvious by now that you should always run your computer's resolution at the native resolution of your LCD monitor. The problem is that many people, especially those of the older generation, find that a 1280x1024 resolution makes text and objects look much too small. Many people just leave their computer at the same resolution they had their computer at before they got an LCD monitor, and don't even realize how bad the picture is. I see this all the time. People are so wowed by the brightness and thinness of their new LCD, they don't even realize how fuzzy the picture is.
Before we do anything, make sure that you set your computer's resolution to the native resolution of your monitor. If you have a 15-inch LCD, it's probably 1024x768. 17- and 19-inch models are most likely 1280x1024. If you are unsure, check the box or the manual that came with your monitor. Now right-click on an empty area of your desktop and choose Properties. Then click on the Settings tab. In the section labeled Screen resolution, move the slider until it matches the native resolution of your LCD monitor (it is probably the highest one, since Windows can usually detect the native resolution of your monitor). See picture above..gif)
Luckily, there are three good options to try if you find that the native resolution of your LCD makes things look too small. All three are very simple and will take a few minutes. Believe me, it's worth it for your eyes.
The first involves increasing the size of Windows fonts. Right-click on an empty area of your desktop and choose Properties. Select the Appearance tab. Under the Font size drop-down, choose Large Fonts and then click Apply (see picture at right). If that's not big enough for you, try Extra Large Fonts. You'll notice that this increases the font sizes within Windows and in most all of the programs you run without sacrificing quality..gif)
Now it may seem like your fonts are huge, but the icons on your desktop are tiny. That's where your second option comes in. Click on the Effects button on the Appearance tab and select the box next to Use large icons, click OK, and then Apply (see picture at left).
Finally, you may notice that the fonts on an LCD monitor look thinner and slightly fuzzier than on your old CRT. Microsoft comes to the rescue with their ClearType Tuner PowerToy. You've heard me rave about the PowerToys before. They are great little additions to Windows that Microsoft's programmers developed, but never made it into Windows. Now they are offered free for download. Download and install the ClearType Tuner, turn on ClearType, and run through the very short wizard to optimize the fonts for your monitor.
Experiment with these options until you find the combination you're most comfortable with. You'll be amazed at how much sharper your LCD is when you are running at its native resolution. Your eyes will thank you.
|
Del.icio.us is Delicious!
|
6.16.2006
|
Link to
this post
In addition to having one of the most clever domain names (why didn't I think of that?), del.icio.us is an excellent and free online bookmarking tool. Why do we need an online bookmarking tool, you ask? For one, you can access your bookmarks anywhere you are, not just at your home computer. Second, now that we get so get so much news, entertainment, and so much more useful or interesting information from the web, managing bookmarks in your browser can become unwieldy. Until I found del.icio.us, I would email myself the links I wanted to keep to my Gmail account. If I wanted to find a link, I could search my Gmail messages, but talk about clunky.
Del.icio.us makes everything so easy. They walk you through adding little buttons to your links bar that make it a one-click affair to bookmark the site you're currently at or access all of your bookmarks. The real power of del.icio.us comes in when you go to bookmark a site. For every link that you bookmark, you can add as many "tags" describing that link as you want. For example, if you were bookmarking GeekyJock.com, you could add tags such as "technology", "advice", "cool", or "useful". Years from now (or tomorrow) you could search your del.icio.us account for those words (or just click one of the tags) and you'd come right to it. This may not seem like much, but if you've got hundreds of bookmarks, it's a lifesaver.
With del.icio.us, you can even share your bookmarks with the world, or with just your friends and family. It's a neat way to see what people are finding out there in cyberspace.
I'd encourage you to head on over to del.icio.us and create an account. You'll never find yourself saying "I wish I could remember that web site" again.
Archives
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
September 2005
October 2005
January 2006
February 2006
May 2006
June 2006
August 2006
March 2007
April 2007
February 2008
March 2008
|
