A Friendly IT Rant

An open letter to Android developers.


To whom it may concern:


First, may I say some of you are doing great work! While I do not have a large number of apps on my phone and tablet, I am pleased with the ones that I have kept. Obviously, I deleted the ones that I was not pleased with.

Second, much of this would also include Apple products, but I have already stated how I feel about those. So, I am ignoring you lot!

Now, I would like to remind all of you that every Android device runs on battery power. Tablets, phones, mp3-type players are all powered by rechargeable batteries. Thus, power consumption is an issue with these devices. Users want as much battery life as possible.

With that in mind, I would like to inform you -- if you were not aware -- that CPU cycles use power. Whenever an application is running, it requires some CPU. Perhaps it does not require much, but any little bit can make a difference. Even an application that is not being actively used, requires some power as long as it is running.

That is why I am puzzled about your practices. I have a grand total of ONE application that quits when I back out of it. One! One Android developer was kind enough to quit the application when I am through with it. The rest require some sort of task killer application to shut them down. What?

I am not only blaming independent developers. I have a few apps on my phone that my provider has decided are required for me. I cannot delete them unless I root my phone which I am hesitant to do. (Although I am becoming tempted.) These things -- which I have never launched -- run in the background all the time. Some process that my provider will not let me kill launches these useless apps. Using up my battery!

Is it so difficult to cause an application to quit when it loses focus? I know it is possible because I have one app that does it. I realize it would make these task killer apps obsolete, but would that be so bad? There are dozens of killing apps out there. Filling a need that is not required to exist.

Another issue in power consumption is using the data network. Some apps get updates and interface with the internet. For some people, it would be nice to do that when they are not using their phones. Getting updates ahead of time can improve how quickly an app launches. I have a comment about that. It should not be the default to do this. The default should be to interface with the internet, etc. when the app is launched. That is how I have it set up where I can. After all, my phone is primarily a phone.

My device is secondarily an internet connected computer. I only want to check my e-mail, etc. on my phone when I absolutely have to. Thus, I do not want it to regularly check in with my account to inform me that I have new mail. Some people are not like that, so that option should be available. However, it should not be the default.

Also, since some services (all now?) limit data access. Think how upset a user would be if their data usage (and battery) was used up by apps they rarely used -- or in some cases -- never used. Hence, there are lots of reasons to be data-usage aware. It is not just that access to whatever internet provider you use greatly utilizes the battery.

To sum up: Android apps should only active when the user launches them. When the user is finished, the app should quit. It is that simple, and that is how you should be thinking about them. Thank you.


Sincerely,

Douglas

Another IT Rant (Reposted)

I posted this last Thursday, and a short time later Blogspot went down.  When it returned, this post was gone.  Coincidence?  We'll find out.  Dear Microsoft Programmers,

Mirriam-Webster defines search in this manner:

to look into or over carefully or thoroughly in an effort to find or discover something: as a : to examine in seeking something <searched the north field> b : to look through or explore by inspecting possible places of concealment or investigating suspicious circumstances c : to read thoroughly : check; especially : to examine a public record or register for information about <search land titles> d : to examine for articles concealed on the person e : to look at as if to discover or penetrate intention or nature

In their definition, you search in order to find things.  In most instances, we search with the expectation that we would indeed find what we are looking for.  I know it is a remarkable concept.

The reason I bring this up, is you apparently have no clue as to what people expect when they do a search.  It seems to me that you need to review this definition because your search services do not seem to find what the user is looking for.

Perhaps you are attempting to use the same mind reading abilities that you build into your other products.  You know the ones.  The things in MS Word you have to turn off to get your document to look the way you want; rather than the way Word thinks you want it to look.  Like how you have to turn off the select whole words otherwise you cannot simply select the stuff you want.  That type of thing.  The things users wrestle with in your products that you think improve them.

Since Windows 98, your built in search program has become less and less useful.  It is going the wrong way!  I found it interesting that the "Advanced Search" in Windows XP was easier to use than the regular search.  Shouldn't the advanced search be harder?  Not to mention, it still found things.  You couldn't have people actually finding things, so you introduced "Search 4" for Windows XP.  At first, you automatically installed it with WindowsUpdate.  So, I had to uninstall it.

In Windows XP you had this nice feature called "Search for Computers"  I cannot tell how handy that was.  (Gone in search 4 and beyond.)  If I had difficulty connecting to a particular network share, I could see if the workstation could actually see it.  You know, by searching for that server computer.  Can't do that anymore.

I have done searches in Windows 7 for files that I knew existed, but Windows 7 could not find them.  I have done searches in Windows 7 where I manually found the file before Windows 7 did.  You see, probably 99% of the time we search for file names.  (It is probably even more than that.)  However, for some reason, your searches also search through text files to look at their contents.  Thus, on unindexed directories (like network shares) search takes forever!  While searching inside files could be handy in some circumstances, in general it just slows down the search.  That kind of thing should be put in -- oh I don't know -- an advanced search.  (Not vice-versa).

The example I have used about your inability to find when doing a search is the program TweakUI.  It is one of your powertoys for Windows XP.  It is a nice little tool to help customize the user interface of Windows XP without having to edit the registry or use the group policy editor.  We used it regularly, and it is a program by you -- Microsoft.

So, you would think you could go to download.microsoft.com and do a search for "TweakUI".  Well, naturally you can, but you won't find it.  A product, that you can download from your site, cannot be found searching your own site for it!  This is as true now as it was when XP was your flagship.  At that time, a Google search for "TweakUI" came up with a link to your site, and it was the first choice.  It is now down the list, but it is a silly situation to have to use an outside service to find files on your site. 

Simply put, Google does search better than you do.  You see, Google is the dominant search engine because when you search for things, you actually find them.  You see, there is that find thing popping up again in this whole search thing.  Do you get the picture?

You want another interesting thing?  If you go to the download page for Windows XP, TweakUI is on the page.  However, if you do not notice it among the long list of other things listed, you might feel the urge to type "TweakUI" in the search bar.  Hey!  It finds things!  Two things (as of this writing.)  That is a big improvement -- oh wait!  No.  Neither link actually takes to you to a place where you can download TweakUI.  You know the program that resides at your site!  You know the one that I was looking for!

So, Bing will never be anything useful -- to anyone -- ever -- as long as it does not come up with useful results when you use it.  The current search on your flagship operating system is far inferior to the search you had on your OS 13 years ago.  You know, things are suppose to improve over time.  At least you are supposed to improve them if you want to retain market dominance.  The thing that helps you is that Apple's finder is a misnomer.

So, please review the above definition of "search" and if you need help with the term "find" that can also be arranged.

Thanks for your attention.

Douglas.

Why I will never buy an iPod.

First, let us look at the iPod model.  You keep your files in this store.  You go in and browse around.  You can listen to your music, etc. while in the store.  Then you go to the clerk, and the clerk puts the selected files into your sack (iPod) when you leave.

There is nothing inherently wrong with this model.  In fact, there are some advantages.  It is a store, so you can immediately add music to your list.  If your favorite artist has a new album out, with just a few clicks that album is in your collection.  It is also a place where you can try out some music.  It is a one stop shop.  Browse the music.  Try out a few seconds of a song to see if you like it.  There are videos there.  All kinds of things for you to browse through.

I have heard, if your computer dies they will let you re-download songs you have already purchased.  Hence, you have a built in off-site backup.   This does not work for songs you obtained from other sources, but that is a nice feature -- if it exists.

Furthermore, you have a sort of P.O. box.  You can subscribe to podcasts and there is a place to deliver them.  In this way, when a new one is available, it is in your list.  You can tell the clerk, you want this in your bag too.

On the other hand...

You are keeping your collection in a store.  Therefore, at every turn, they want to sell you something.  Not to mention how much stuff is in the thing.  Try looking for some retro-swing in it.  Swing is not one of its genres.  So, you go to jazz.  Swing is not one of its sub-genres.  Thus, you have to look by artist.  But, if you are looking for something new in this particular style, then you are not going to have much luck.  If you like popular music, then you should not have much difficulty.  However, if you like stuff off the beaten path, then you are going to have difficulty finding the type of music you like.  Hey!  That's me!

Podcasts are a direct result of the iPod.  You can tell by the name.  However, good luck finding them on iTunes!  From my experience, the podcasts are not even split up into genres.  So, if you like one particular podcast, you will not have any luck finding something similar.  (I have limited experience with iTunes because my first few experiences were negative.)  It is far easier to go somewhere else to find podcasts that your are interested in.  The site of the podcast will generally have a special link to subscribe in iTunes.  Hence, you are far better off using Google to find podcasts than using iTunes.

Furthermore, since iTunes is an internet aware product.  It is constantly needing to be updated for security issues.  It has a TSR, and you know how I feel about them.  It is not a particularly good program for media consumption.  It tries (and fails) to do too much.  Not to mention, it is a store.  Why should it be helpful when it is giving away free things?

Now, iTunes can be run from any computer in your house.  However, you can only load media on your device in only one location.  You have to work it out if you and anyone else living in your house each have your own device.

The original iPod could be used as an external usb hard-drive.  However, that is no longer the case.  Gone are the days when you could put any file you wanted on your iPod.  If you need to get a PowerPoint presentation from one computer to another, you cannot use that convenient flash drive you carry around with music on it.  You need another external drive.  That clerk will not even look at files it does not recognize.


Have I mentioned Digital Rights Management?  Have I mentioned no control over the quality settings for your MP3s?  You see, iTunes was set up in a way to prevent trouble from the RIAA.  It is based on the thought that if people had full control over the media they purchase, they will do bad things with it -- like share!  This is why you cannot gain access to the iPod.  It is a portable hard drive that can be plugged into any computer with a usb port.  You could copy those files onto any other computer!  There are lots of other media players with the same design in mind, but the iPod is the most successful.

What I want, is a flash drive that can play media.  (my Sansa w/ Rockbox installed is like that.)  I can put any file I want on it.  It just appears on my computer (any computer) as a usb drive. 

In my world, I keep all my music in a central repository -- only accessible from within my house network.  While at home, I want my devices to have access to my full library.  In this way, I have set up an internal web page that plays my music.  However, iPods -- even the iPod touch and the iPad -- do not like to play music external to them.  Thus, they will not run my internal web page. (I tested it) Thus, an iPod would only have access to a portion of my library at any given time.  I would have to reload it regularly.  Which is another task that I have no interest in.

Since I feel the iPod/iPad and the entire line of portable media devices built by Apple are anchored to this dog called iTunes, I cannot ever see myself wanting to purchase one.  Further, the continued practice of controlling what is on the device essentially cripples them in my eyes.  It seems like that is the road which Apple wishes to travel, and I am certainly not going to go down that road with them.  This is just a brief overview of why I will never purchase an iPod.

A minor rant...

I would like to say a little thing about TSRs  (Terminate and Stay Resident programs.)

Back in the olden days, there was a 640kb limit on memory.  I know DOS is ancient history, but it is semi-relevant to this thread of conversation.  With this memory limit, those of in the IT biz, needed to be aware of everything running on our machines.  If it was not needed, it needed to be ditched.  Most of these things were TSRs.

Since I was in the IT game back then, I was keenly aware of these small programs.  I was also aware whether they were needed or not.  I knew how to rid my system of them.  I still know how, but many software manufacturers are making it much harder than it should be.

In the transition from DOS to Windows 95, the TSRs were placed in the Windows "Start" menu.  There was this item called "Startup Programs".  This is where they should ALL be -- even today.  However, some software manufacturers found out how easy it was to remove these things from the Start Menu.  This would not do!  That Adobe Acrobat thing is IMPORTANT!  Even if you only open a pdf document once or twice a month.  That TSR could save you an entire 3 seconds!  Furthermore, how will it know when to download its biweekly update?

Java, YahooMessenger, MS Messenger and others do the same thing.  Their programs are so important, that they need resources to go out on the internet and check whether their software has been updated. Further, it needs to do this on a daily basis. Why does your computer behave so slowly when you start up?  Because all of the internet aware programs check in when you start your computer!  These take up your computer's resources.

So, can you just delete them from your "Start Menu"?  Heavens no!  Why should it be easy to remove their beloved software?  So, they put their TSR load commands in the Registry!  You know, because everyone loves editing their registry!  Unwanted and unneeded program launches have no business in the registry!  Luckily, Microsoft has a program (MSCONFIG.EXE) that allows you to deal with startup items.  It is a little scary, but you do not have to edit the registry directly.

So, now that we can delete these TSRs there, where else could they be?  Google puts items in your "Scheduled Task" list.  It is a cheat.  They can claim how quickly they start up -- because they do not have to waste cycles on checking to see if their program has been updated.  That is because they do it whenever they want -- in a scheduled task.  All the program has to do is to put the scheduled task back in the list if it does not exist.

We had a piece of software running in the labs that kept the computers in a "Steady State".  Anytime the computer restarted, it would return to this recorded state.  Thus, any install or change in the computer could be undone with a restart.  We were constantly struggling with Google because the updater would run in the middle of the day.  The computer would restart, and the updater would run again.  That is one of the problems of the scheduled task.  It would also randomize the times -- to some time not in our update window.

So, computer software engineers, listen up.  First, if your software does not need to be internet aware, then don't make it be internet aware.  There is no reason that a movie player, or pdf reader, or any type of document viewer needs to be aware of the internet.  If it does not talk to the internet, it will not run into security risks.

Second, if you feel your program must be internet aware, make the check when the program starts up.  I will delete and stop your TSR.  No program (other than my web browser and antivirus program) is important enough to me to be constantly running.  I know my PDF viewer will check when I launch it, so I really do not need its TSR.

Third, if you update your software, you had better not reenable your TSR.  I fight enough with your stupid placement of your stupid icons, I hate fighting with even more stuff.  TSRs and icon fighting are just too much to deal with.  Fortunately there are alternatives for many of the popular programs.  I will use a small streamlined TSR-Free program over a bloated internet aware constantly updating POS any day!

Will this kill the iPad?

I have always like the iPad's form factor.  Also, it has a pretty nice price.  It is in essence, a netbook but with a touch screen instead of a keyboard.  However, I hate its OS.  It is hamstrung.  It does not have the capabilities of a netbook -- which has a full OS.  Matt Buchanan at Gizmodo explains how it just got worse.  Will it kill the iPad?  I hope so!

An open letter to Adobe Reader programmers

To whom it may concern:

Since Microsoft Windows 95 came along, there has been a problem.  For some reason, Microsoft wanted everything in the "Start Menu" -- uninstallers, FAQ, webpage links.  In my mind, this is not the way it should be.  There should only be executeables in the start menu.  In fact, the "uninstall" icon should not be anywhere.  After all, they have a control panel for that!

Since Windows 95, I have manually removed and rearranged icons in my start menu.  My start menus are a thing of beauty.  Programs easily found.  No accidental uninstall processes.

Further, I have very little on my desktop.  I do not want my desktop cluttered up like an unedited start menu.

This brings me to the point of this letter.  Adobe Acrobat!  What do you do?  On a clean system, you have no option as to what to do with the icons.  A useless icon I might add.  Who clicks on the "Adobe Acrobat Reader" icon?  I click on the PDF file itself and let it launch the Reader program.  That is why people use "GUI" operating systems.  They do not have to know that "Adobe Acrobat Reader" opens PDF files.  The expect the OS to know.

So, not only do I not get to choose where you place your useless icon, it is even worse.  You see, you think that your program needs to be internet aware.  It has to interact with everyone in the world on the internet.  (Why?  I do not know.)  That means that you programmers have to be very careful.  If you make one slight error, some ne'er-do-well comes along and gains full access to my computer.  Thus, you must release security patches 4 times a day.

Now these patches would not bother me too much if it weren't for fact number 1.  EVERY PATCH replaces the icon on the desktop and in my start menu.  You know, the ones I deleted!  Hence, with every patch, I have to delete your worthless icons again!  Why?  Because you do not give us any options!

Here is an idea: just patch your software!  Do not worry about where the icons reside.  There is a reason there is no icon on my desktop.  I do not want it there.  There is a reason that there is no icon in the root of my start menu.  It is because I put it in "utilities".  You know, the list of things that I rarely click on.  Join us in the 21st century.  Stop being annoying.  Otherwise, I will stop using you!

Your friend

Douglas