Archive for category Technology

OS X Single User Mode - reset forgotten password

Posted by David Hurst in Apple, Guides on February 11th, 2010

Have you forgotten your OS X password? Maybe you bought a second hand Mac and don’t know the password, or even the username? This quick guide will solve your troubles.

  1. Shutdown your Mac
  2. Start the Mac whilst holding down Command + s
  3. The mac should boot to a command prompt with white text on a black background.
  4. Type: sh /etc/rc
  5. Now if you know your username, skip to step 9, otherwise follow on…
  6. Type: cd /Users
  7. Type: ls
  8. You are now looking at the contents of the Users folders where the users’ home directories are. The directories will match the names of the users, ergo you now have a username to change the password for. (You may need to repeat this if there are multiple users until you find an admin user.)
  9. Type: passwd username - where username is the name you want to change the password for.
  10. You now type a new password and confirm it.
  11. Type: shutdown -r now
  12. The Mac will now reboot and you can log in with your new password. From here, you can set up new user accounts via System Preferences etc.

I hope that helps someone out there.

No Comments

What exactly does the Apple iPad do better?

Posted by David Hurst in Apple, Guides, Hardware, Issues, Reviews, Technology on January 28th, 2010

When Steve Jobs launched the iPad yesterday, he made a compelling case for a device to fill the gap between a smartphone and a PC/Mac. In his words, “If there’s gonna be a third category, it has to be better at these tasks — otherwise it has no reason for being.” Which tasks?

  • Browsing
  • Email
  • Photos
  • Video
  • Music
  • Games
  • eBooks

So, I thought it might be interesting to look at each of these things and see whether it is better at these key tasks than any of the alternatives.

Browsing
I think browsing the Internet on the iPad would be a nice experience. The screen size and touch interface combined with the portability of the device would seem to offer a better experience than a smartphone, netbook or PC/Mac. However, at the moment there is no Flash player on the iPad, and given that much of the video streaming done on the Internet now runs through Flash, I would see this as a huge fault.

Verdict: better than a smartphone, but simply cannot compete with a PC/Mac. Probably a better browsing experience with that screen than a netbook, but at least my netbook has the Flash player, not to mention a choice of browsers. I don’t believe anyone could say the iPad is better at browsing.

Email
Apple have vastly improved the iPhone email interface for the iPad, but the iPad is not a phone. Surely they should have used Mac Mail as the starting point? By virtue of the bigger screen, the iPad will be more pleasant to use than a smartphone, but given the superior portability of a phone and the cheaper cost of connectivity, it doesn’t really win out in the mobile email stakes. And of course, it can’t match a standard OS for email power and choice of email clients.

Verdict: what’s better? Nothing that I can see. Smartphones are better for mobile email, netbooks and PC/Macs are better at general email. Another defeat for iPad I’m afraid.

Photos
I’m just confused by this. I could see a use for the iPad as a way to share and enjoy photos with family and friends, but its lack of standard USB connectivity ruins this. You can’t just plug your digital camera into your iPad (not without the special adapter/connector, which will be a cost extra anyway), nor can you copy photos onto a memory stick or external hard disk. Presumably you will be reduced to copying all those 10MP photos in your collection via the incredibly slow Bluetooth, or by WiFi, assuming you have an access point nearby.

There’s no camera in the iPad, and it’s not like you would want to actually take photos with a device of this size anyway. Many smartphones on the other hand, do have cameras, and some of them are very good. My Palm Pre has an acceptable camera, with a flash, and is able to upload directly to Facebook, which is actually where I share photos with my friends and family.

Verdict: better than a smartphone or netbook for browsing photos, but much more difficult to get the photos on the device in the first place. Can’t match a PC/Mac for this at all.

Video
This I really don’t understand. The screen is 1024 x 768 resolution, or 4:3 in aspect ratio terms, so there’s no widescreen and given that most video produced now is widescreen, that means you will be chopping part of the video off to make it fit, or you will be forced to watch video in a strip across the middle of the screen. Most smartphones are widescreen, and so is pretty much every netbook or PC/Mac you can buy.

The lack of Flash player means that there’s no chance of watching online TV with BBC iPlayer or other services, and that’s just a huge flaw. And that lack of USB also means no DVD drive either.

Verdict: smartphones may be small but they are at least widescreen. Netbooks have the Flash player and can play DVDs with external drives. Your PC/Mac can do all of these things much better. So where does that leave iPad?

Music
Music? Really? Who is going to want a portable music player with a 9.7″ screen? It could be useful, plugged into an amp whilst streaming music from your main iTunes collection, but on its own the iPad does not look like a revolutionary music device, nor can it do anything better than any other devices.

Perhaps Apple are referring to music production, but given they have supplied no apps for this, I think I’ll stick to Garageband and Logic on my more powerful and usable Macs.

Verdict: iPad does nothing better than anything else.

Games
Again, I don’t get it. Touchscreen games are all well and good on an iPhone or iPod touch, but on a larger device it is a nonsense interface. Plus, the graphics power is hardly going to be blowing anyone away. For the price of a decent iPad you can have a reasonable PC games rig, or you could have a netbook and a games console.

Verdict: smartphones are better for mobile games, and PC/Mac is better for proper games. The iPad probably beats a netbook here, although mine does run Quake3 at perfectly acceptable speeds. I remain entirely unconvinced.

eBooks
And here we get to the core of the issue. If Apple had launched the iPad as the iReader, I think everyone would be happy. Whether or not its screen works as well as the Kindle’s e-ink screen for reading books, remains to be seen. But given the closeness of the pricing on the various reader devices, the iPad makes a lot of sense: pay a little more, get a lot more. Personally, I’d rather sit and read a well thumbed paperback.

Verdict: the iPad’s true reason for being.

Should you buy an iPad?
If you are in the market for an e-reader, then the iPad has to be worthy of consideration. If not, then I don’t believe iPad will do anything for you other than giving you a short period of popularity whilst all your friends and colleagues come to stroke it and dribble on it. I guess if you have money to burn and you want to buy into Apple’s sexily packaged gadget du jour, then go for it.

If you do buy it, just remember that Apple will eventually address all the flaws, just as they did with iPhone, and then in short order they will bring out a better specced, more powerful and cheaper second version, leaving you with an obsolete but attractive door stop.

Apple has always treated its early adopters with an attitude bordering on contempt, yet the fanboys keep coming back for more, always failing to realise Apple couldn’t give a crap about them - they are, and always have been, a corporation interested only in the bottom line, and a bunch of early adopters buying what is essentially a beta version are simply helping to pay for the research and development of the final version, and that is very good for the bottom line.

No Comments

Apple iPad - a bit of a disappointment?

Posted by David Hurst in Apple, Hardware, Reviews, Technology on January 27th, 2010

Well, the excitement of the launch of Apple’s worst kept secret is over but the hype is probably just going to get worse. It would seem opinion is divided, with some believing Apple’s collective genius has once again solved all our technology needs, whereas others feel the iPad is overrated and something of a disappointment. After having a few hours to reflect, I’m afraid I fall into the latter camp.

Firstly, I have to ask myself what gap in the market the iPad is filling? According to Steve Jobs’ launch keynote, it’s the space between a phone and a computer. Specifically, it needs to be able to browse the web, do email, video, music, games etc., and it must do all these things really well. He then said that netbooks currently fill this gap and they don’t do anything well. So, in Apple’s opinion, the iPad is to occupy the netbook sector and be a lot better than a netbook. Is it? What would I want from a device like that?

I’m typing this post on my netbook. It’s a Packard Bell ZA8. It has a 1.2GHz 64bit AMD processor, ATI graphics, 140Gb hard disk, 2Gb RAM, 3 USB ports, VGA, a card reader and a webcam. It’s running Ubuntu Linux and can therefore multi-task perfectly and run any Linux software I wish. I can completely customise the interface, access my hard disk, plug in a DVD drive or any other USB accessory I like. (It came with Windows Vista on it, which also offers all these things - it ran Vista OK too.) I can plug in my mobile broadband dongle, go online anywhere, video conference - it’s just a smaller more portable (and less powerful) version of my main laptop and desktop, and that’s what I want from a device in this market sector. It cost £300 and it has a better than average keyboard and screen resolution for a netbook. The only downside is the woeful battery life, but at least I can change the battery if I want, and I can upgrade the disk and memory too.

How many of these things can the iPad do?

The Screen
The resolution of the screen is 1024 x 768. When did you last see a new laptop or monitor with that as a native resolution? Consumers want widescreen, not 4:3. Can you imagine how dire widescreen movies will look on this thing? They will play in a tiny strip. This is a massive oversight.

Processor
It’s a custom Apple chip called an A4 and running at 1GHz. Of course without knowing the IPC rate or cache values, it’s impossible to gauge how powerful this chip will be. Apple are pretty good at matching processor power to equipment, so likely it’s fast enough to do everything the iPad does. No doubt it plays smooth video too. My netbook is fine with DVDs, and with video streaming, as long as the canvas size of the video is not too big. Full screen BBC iPlayer doesn’t work on my netbook, but I imagine the iPad could do that… if it had Flash… which it doesn’t.

Disk Space
The iPad is available with 16Gb, 32Gb or 64Gb solid state disks. 16Gb is peanuts these days, and most netbooks offer 100Gb or more. What’s more, the netbook, being basically a cut-down PC, gives full access to the data on your disk, whereas the iPad runs what is basically the iPhone OS and unless they have made changes, that does not currently have any sort of file navigation or management.

No doubt the iPad will be syncing all its data with your desktop and that puts iTunes or whatever software package in control of what you store on your device, and that seems too limiting for a netbook. Frankly it’s annoying on the iPhone and I can only imagine it will be worse on the iPad.

USB
USB is an essential part of modern computing. The iPad doesn’t have it. That means no DVD drives, cameras, flash disks, backup drives etc., whereas my netbook can interface with all these things.

Webcam
Why is there no webcam? Surely a device like this is ideal for Skype and video conference? I can’t believe Apple thought about this and decided the iPad could do without a camera. It’s much more likely that they couldn’t get it in on this version.

Multi-tasking
I ditched my iPhone for a Palm Pre for the simple reason that the iPhone OS does not do multi-tasking. You might think this isn’t a problem, but I quite often spend an evening with my laptop or netbook out, browsing the Internet whilst chatting to friends on MSN or other IM networks. You won’t be able to do this with iPad, and I believe that’s a big let down on a device like this.

My Conclusions
Apple made a big thing about how cheap this device is, but the cheapest one has only a 16Gb drive, no 3G connectivity and still costs more than my more capable netbook. The 3G connectivity will be essential, because without it and without any USB ports, the only way you’ll be able to get online is via WiFi, and that means finding a hotspot. Plus, the 3G costs an extra $130, whereas mobile broadband dongles in the UK are now very cheap. The 64Gb version with 3G is a whopping $829. That’s an expensive netbook!

The iPad is not really a computer like your desktop, laptop or even netbook - it is a cobbled gadget. An iPad that runs OS X would have been an attractive proposition, but I don’t see any value in using a phone OS on a computer. Yeah, sure, it’s a great piece of design. It does what it does really well. Some of the apps look fab. But get past all of that, and it’s really just eye candy. Are you really going to want to scroll through loads of photos on your iPad? Bear in mind that you won’t just be able to hook up your camera to it, so you’ll have to first download all your images from your camera to your computer and then sync with the iPad. Sounds like more work to me rather than making things simpler.

What about music? Well, I already have an iPod, and I phone that can play MP3s. Heck, even my car stereo can play them. How many places do I need my iTunes, and do I really want a personal music player with a 9.7″ screen?

What was the real motivation for making this gadget?

Could it be that Apple sat and looked at its 75 million iPhone and iPod Touch users, and the 125 million app store accounts, and then thought… “how can we squeeze more cash out of these people”? They then looked at the Amazon Kindle and Sony’s reader and decided to make a book store and a larger iPod to put it all on. Then they dress it up as a tablet computer and tell us that it’s the thing we need to fill the gap in our computing life.

Apple fans and gadget fans everywhere will rush out to buy these things without really thinking about whether or not it will actually be worthwhile to have. Apple fans always do. And true to form, Apple will treat its early adopters with usual contempt by bringing out a version 2 with all the features version 1 should have had in short order, and probably with a lower price tag. The thing is not even ready to ship for another 60 - 90 days. What’s wrong with it? Is it not finished? Are there manufacturing issues? Are Apple waiting to see how many people pre-order before they really commit to production? It doesn’t make sense to me.

I love Apple computers and I love OS X, but I hate what Apple the company has become, and the iPad appears to me to be nothing more than a giant ruse to make money. It’s easy to get carried along on the tidal wave of hype and spin, or to be seduced by the touchy feely goodness of the thing, but I won’t be rushing out to buy an iPad I’m afraid. I know that as soon as I get chance to touch one in the Apple store, I will want it, but that’s all it’ll be: a want, not a need. I don’t need an iPad. It doesn’t neatly solve any computing gaps in my life, and is therefore nothing more than a toy. I’ll stick with my trusty Packard Bell netbook. The battery may be crap, but I can forgive it that and carry a spare in the comfortable knowledge that I can do almost everything I would ever want to do with a computer on a device that is small and portable.

1 Comment

Internet Explorer - the world’s most popular browser?

Posted by David Hurst in Apple, Issues, Rants, Technology on January 13th, 2010

Question: is Internet Explorer the world’s most popular browser?

Let’s look at the stats for the major players (correct at January 2010)…

(EDIT: no doubt these stats will be completely inaccurate by now, particularly given the massive security flaw in IE that allowed Google email accounts to be spied on by Chinese hackers, and the subsequent warning from the German Government that people should find an alternative browser to use)

62.69% - Internet Explorer
24.61% - Firefox
4.63% - Chrome
4.46% - Safari
2.40% - Opera

Internet Explorer still has a considerable lead in the market share (although this is steadily decreasing), but this is simply because the PC buying public are force-fed the IE browser as it comes built into their Windows installation. So, Internet Explorer is certainly the most used browser, but I wouldn’t say it was the most popular, particularly when you consider that Firefox is not shipped with major operating systems (it is usually the default browser in most Linux distributions, but Linux as an OS only has 1.02% of the world market). So, in order to be using Firefox, the user has to have actively voted with their feet and installed the Firefox browser, rather than use the default browser forced upon them by Microsoft. In my opinion, this makes Firefox the most popular browser, if not the most used. I don’t think you can call something “popular” if it’s something that’s foisted upon people - people who probably don’t realise there’s an alternative.

Some might call this semantics, but for me it’s about getting to the core of the issue. Serious computer users, and anyone with any sense or IT knowledge, will most likely not be using Internet Explorer.

IE as a browser is the worst of the five listed above. Microsoft resolutely refuse to abide by standards set by W3C and others. When W3C compliant code doesn’t work as expected in Internet Explorer, the Microsoft support stance is that their browser is flawless and it is the developer who is at fault. This means that web developers everywhere are having to develop code twice: once to standards, and then a second time to adapt it for Microsoft’s flaws. Microsoft’s arrogance beggars belief! It’s equivalent to buying a car that doesn’t support highway standards, then when you complain to the company involved that your car doesn’t work with the road network in your country, they just turn around and say “change the road network to suit our car”. What a joke!

Worse still, IE is the principal reason for many of the viruses and trojans that plague Windows users (but not Mac or Linux users). Do a Windows update and you will notice that it runs through Internet Explorer. This means that it is possible for a remote computer to access your files and setup details, and update those files and configurations via your web browser! Microsoft may occasionally patch and secure it, but this is a totally flawed mechanism that will always have vulnerabilities no matter what they do.

If most Windows users were told the truth about Internet Explorer, I think the market share data above would be very different. If you are currently using Internet Explorer, I strongly suggest you try Firefox, Chrome or Safari - they’re all free, faster than IE, standards compliant, feature rich and more secure than Internet Explorer.

Microsoft is losing it’s global dominance, albeit very slowly. Apple are selling more computers than ever - in fact every quarter they post record sales of Apple desktops and laptops. Linux has also properly arrived in the mainstream - the latest version of Ubuntu is exceptional. Consumers are getting more savvy and will start to demand better. Why should you have to put up with a virus-riddled, unreliable dog of an operating system when the competition is more secure, more stable, faster and cheaper?

Beats me why anyone would choose to use IE or Windows. My business partner swears by a PC with Windows… well actually, he swears at his PC with windows. A lot. There is continual talk of “rebuilds” (re-installation of Windows and wiping of the hard disk), whereas my three and a half year old Apple MacBook Pro is still going strong despite never being re-installed, and never having any anti-virus software whatsoever installed. It’s a no brainer.

5 Comments

Microsoft Staff Living in Dream Land

Posted by David Hurst in Issues, Rants, Technology on November 13th, 2009

I just spotted this quote from Simon Aldous, Partner Group Manager at Microsoft, on the BBC News website:

“What we’ve tried to do with Windows 7 - whether it’s traditional format or in a touch format - is create a Mac look and feel in terms of graphics. We’ve significantly improved the graphical user interface, but it’s built on that very stable core Vista technology, which is far more stable than the current Mac platform, for instance.”

Uhm gosh. Stop the press. Microsoft copying Apple? Nothing new there at all. All these companies copy each other all the time. Apple copy others too.

But, is he serious - Vista more stable than OS X?

Which planet are you living on Mr Aldous?!

Vista is a dog horrible operating system and there’s no way anybody is going to believe it’s more stable than the highly secure UNIX-based OS X.

Unsurprisingly, Microsoft are distancing themselves from the comments. The guy clearly doesn’t have a clue.

1 Comment