Tag Archives: Microsoft

Drug use at Microsoft HQ

OK, I have no evidence of rampant indulgence in illicit substances in Redmond, but it’s hard to find another explanation for this image being standard-issue wallpaper:

windows-7-wallpaper-20090429

!= has more on the potential symbolism (perhaps subconscious) in this image. And also links to a rather fascinating article about microscopic, holographic photos embedded in the Windows Vista installer disc. While it’s truly an impressive achievement, one wonders whether Microsoft’s R&D priorities are really in the right place with this.

Posted in honor of today’s availability of the Windows 7 Release Candidate as a free download. Yes, I am downloading it now. (I just blew Kosh’s mind.)

Update: Yes, this is trivial. I’m petty. But still, first impressions and all. The first few screens of the installation start-up were a lot more aesthetically pleasing than the white-on-blue terminal screen look of the Windows XP installer.

But I have to wonder about this particular screenshot. Could they really not fit that text on one line?

Windows 7 install screen

Also, this window has a more-or-less Vista-style interface. Before this there was a screen where I had to pick my language preferences, and that window looked like the Windows 2000 interface. Which “classic” Windows interface style will the next screen feature? And was this walk through the museum of Microsoft OS antiquities really intentional?

Oh, and I almost forgot… did they really mean to put the red “close window” X there? It glows when I mouse over it. Must… resist… temptation…. I can only assume clicking it would cancel the installation. But would I get a chance to confirm that rash decision? Wouldn’t a smartly labeled “Cancel installation…” button have made more sense?

Ubuntu hits the big time, for real this time

Ubuntu LinuxI just finished installing Ubuntu Linux 9.04 on my MacBook under Parallels Desktop. In the past, I’ve ventured boldly into the realm of triple-boot configurations to allow my Mac to run Mac OS X, Windows XP and Ubuntu Linux. But that involves modifying firmware and overriding the standard boot process, plus splitting your drive into 3 partitions and reciting dark incantations by the light of the full moon whilst drinking the blood of a calf slain with a silver blade.

Well OK, not that last bit. I’m not sure where that comes from (oh right, that was the part about installing Windows on the Mac). But suffice to say, while it certainly could be done, setting up triple-boot was not for the faint of heart, and once it was working, the question of whether it was all worth it loomed large. And no, I cannot think in non-clichés tonight.

When I got my new MacBook a couple months ago, I decided my days of triple boot were over. I was just going to go by the book (see what I mean?) and use Boot Camp. Well, sort of by the book. Never one to take the easy road, I wasn’t just using Boot Camp, but also running Parallels Desktop. And while you certainly can run a valid Boot Camp installation of Windows XP with an OEM license (the cheapest way to go, courtesy of Newegg.com) both directly via Boot Camp and also with Parallels, Microsoft doesn’t make it easy for you. It involves calling an automated Microsoft support line, and reciting dark incantations by the light of the full moon — I mean reciting a 48-digit number displayed on your screen, answering four simple questions asserting that you have only installed Windows on one computer and you would never, ever, ever, ever lie to Microsoft or Steve Ballmer will bite the head off a live goat and put it in your bed while you sleep, and then typing in a new 48-digit number the automated system recites back to you, while it slays a calf with a silver blade, yadda yadda.

Now where was I?

Oh yeah, Ubuntu. A new version of Ubuntu Linux is released every six months, the latest version, 9.04 (so named for being released in April 2009, get it?), having arrived on the world’s virtual doorstep earlier this week. Ubuntu releases all have clever, alliterative codenames too. This one is Jaunty Jackalope. I’ve been following Ubuntu (via the triple-boot ritual) since Gutsy Gibbon (7.10), through last year’s releases of Hardy Heron (8.04) and Intrepid Ibex (8.10), the latter of which powers this website, thanks to Slicehost.

I’ve been more and more impressed with each release of Ubuntu, as the Ubuntu development team has polished the user experience — especially the once-nightmarish installation process — and as the GNOME team has simultaneously polished the desktop software most Ubuntu users live in day-to-day. While I’m still a die-hard Mac lover, I’ll admit Microsoft has been making major improvements with its GUI design (despite other notorious issues) with Vista, and Ubuntu/GNOME has been getting better and better with each new release as well. But I really feel like 9.04, Jaunty Jackalope, has finally crossed the line where Ubuntu Linux now feels to me every bit as polished, professional, usable and pleasing as a commercial OS. The installation process is far easier, and faster, than a Windows installation, and the overall experience of the interface is clean, intuitive, and responsive.

So it occurs to me, even in this age of netbooks and Microsoft’s (and to a much lesser extent, Apple’s, at least where the Mac is concerned — iPhone is definitely their top focus these days) recent floundering, while Linux, Ubuntu in particular, is making inroads, it’s still just not going to be embraced wholeheartedly as a viable desktop alternative.

Why is that? Well, obviously Microsoft doesn’t want that to happen. Linux really much more of a threat to Microsoft than it is to Apple. Even though all three OSes can run on Macs, people as a rule just aren’t buying Macs to not run Mac OS X. I’m sure it happens but… really… why? So the major hit to commercial OS developers comes when a user buys a non-Apple computer and decides to install and use Linux (Ubuntu or otherwise) as their primary/sole OS instead of Windows. So even as Linux, and the world of free, high-quality software that comes with it, reaches maturity, and Microsoft gives us an OS that is best known as the butt of jokes (not to mention viruses and malware of all sorts), why aren’t more people switching?

Ultimately there must be some software that users are relying on for Windows that they just can’t get for Linux. It’s the same argument often leveled against Macs: “not enough software.” It’s a straw man argument. Sure there is vastly more software written for Windows than for the other OSes, but 99.9% of that Windows-only software is: a) highly specialized tools for specific industries, b) utter crap, or usually c) both. Especially when we’re talking about consumer software, whatever it is you want to do can be done just as easily on Windows, Mac or Linux. The software exists. Often between Macs and Windows it’s the same software, ported from one OS to the other or developed concurrently. With Linux it’s usually open source alternatives that are every bit as feature-rich as their commercial counterparts.

Linux has decent free options for managing photos, listening to MP3s, editing video, and all of the office tasks covered by iLife and iWork on the Mac, or by Microsoft Office and the parade of unimaginatively named Microsoft tools or OEM add-on crapware that generally comes preinstalled on Windows PCs.

Except one.

No disrespect to the developers of GIMP, but the one software program Linux absolutely needs in order to be taken seriously as a desktop OS is Photoshop. That’s it. Once Adobe stops wasting its time writing terrible custom installers and decides instead to devote those resources to porting Creative Suite to Linux, it will be all over. Windows will never go away, I’m sure, but it will be reduced to a niche OS: it will live on mainly to support legacy point-of-sale systems and industrial fabrication applications and the other arcane and ugly commercial applications that companies generally deployed in huge numbers back in the Windows NT 3.51 era and have left untouched for more than a decade.

Adobe, it’s all up to you. You owe the world a karmic debt after Bridge.

Bring down IE 6!

IE6, R.I.P. I wish.Here’s a far more detailed, reasoned explanation of why Internet Explorer 6 is just plain bad than I could ever muster in the midst of one of my Microsoft-fueled rages. (OK, maybe that overstates it a bit and gives Redmond too much credit for my anger issues.)

Here it is, plain and simple: Internet Explorer 6 has been around as long as Windows XP, and it’s even longer in the tooth. A lot has happened to the Web in the last 8 years, and IE6 is simply not equipped to handle what 2009 websites throw at it. It’s a security nightmare, and it’s woefully lacking in support of even relatively modest features that all other browsers out there today support, and that we in the web design and development community desperately want to take advantage of in building functional, aesthetically pleasing, just plain cool websites.

But we can’t. Or, we can, but then we have to spend a substantial chunk of the total time and budget of a project (often a third or more) hacking our own (standards-compliant) work to try to make it even just passably functional in IE6. This has to end. IE6 is not just a pain in the butt of web geeks like me. Because it is wasting the valuable time and financial resources of anyone involved in the creation of websites (and by extension, any business or organization that has a website), it is a drain on our economy in the same way as old, gas guzzling cars or any other outmoded, grossly inefficient system.

It’s time. IE6 is dead. Lay it to rest.

Internet Explorer and transparent CSS layers

ie7chalkHere’s the scenario: I’m working on an image gallery for a client site, sort of a slideshow concept. The client wants the user to be able to click on the left half of the current image (“slide”) to move to the previous image, and on the right half of the current image to move to the next.

OK, no problem.

In the days of yore, I might have handled this with an imagemap. But my solution now, drenched in jQuery goodness, involves a pair of empty <div> tags, with set dimensions, absolute positioning and z-index in the CSS. These transparent <div>s are overlaid on the image, and the jQuery code triggers a refresh of the HTML code in the slideshow <div> itself, underneath, that contains the <img> tag for the current “slide.”

If you’re not a web developer that last paragraph is probably little more than a steaming pile of (to follow John Hodgman‘s lead) “bullroar,” but the point is that this allowed me to stick to semantic HTML (more or less — there is a chunk of JavaScript code directly in the page, but I may optimize that out of there soon), and keep most of the presentation in the CSS and the functionality in a separate JavaScript file, the way it should be.

Only it doesn’t work in Internet Explorer.

“It doesn’t work in Internet Explorer” is nothing new to me, and in fact I wasn’t totally surprised by that. My first hunch was that IE didn’t like the empty <div>s, even though they have dimensions specified in the CSS, so I gritted my teeth and stuck &nbsp; inside each one. Didn’t help.

Next I decided to make sure my dimensions were being interpreted properly, since it seemed clear that they weren’t: when I say it didn’t work in Internet Explorer, that’s only a half-truth. It didn’t work properly in Internet Explorer, but there were clickable areas on the slide — they were just really small and not in the right places.

So I set the background of the “previous” area to red and the background of the “next” area to blue. Reloaded in IE. Yep, the dimensions looked perfect — my photo was now covered precisely by equal-sized red and blue rectangles. And, curiously, the links worked properly now. I thought maybe it was just because I had added some CSS code for these <div>s in my IE-specific stylesheet (yeah, I do that… get over it). So I changed them both to transparent within the IE-specific stylesheet, and the problem reappeared.

And then, it hit me. No… could it be?

Yes, it could: IE was just ignoring the presence of those z-indexed <div>s simply because their backgrounds were transparent. This is probably a “known issue” with IE, but I had never had to deal with it before, and regardless, it sure as hell didn’t make any sense.

My solution? I went for a play straight out of the book of web design circa 1997: a one-pixel transparent GIF. Except I used a PNG, but same thing. I made a completely transparent image, and in the IE CSS file, I used that as the background for these <div>s.

Problem solved. But as is so often the case with IE issues, the solution is so bitterly unsatisfying, so fundamentally wrong, that there is no joy in its discovery. Just the impetus to blog about it.