The Evangelist

For those of you who haven't heard, an official native port of Google Chrome is now available for Mac OS X and Linux.

Before this, Crossover Chromium offered an alternative way to run Chrome on OS X and Linux.

It should be noted that these are still in beta, and therefore there still may be bugs that need to be worked out.

The Linux port can be downloaded as either 32- or 64-bit .deb or .rpm packages for both Debian-based distributions such as Ubuntu and distributions that use the Red Hat Package Manager, such as Fedora.

For many consumers, it can seem like it is you against the technology. Indeed, the very technology that is supposed to make our lives easier can seem to complicate things. This is especially true when new versions of software are released that, while they may have more features, typically introduce interface changes that may confuse users and can also have bugs in all of those new features.

This is especially relevant at the moment, with the recent release of Apple's Mac OS X Snow Leopard and Microsoft's impending release of Windows 7.

Despite the fact that Apple's Mac operating systems are typically known for their reliability and easy of use, Snow Leopard has not been without its problems. Most notable is a recently discovered bug that could cause the administrator account's data to be deleted. This, however, requires some unique circumstances and isn't exactly easily reproduced unless you are really trying to cause it. On the other hand, there have been compatibility problems, which has far greater potential to affect the experience of users. In addition, Snow Leopard does not come with Rosetta installed by default. While this results in a smaller default installation (as Apple has touted), it also means that the user has to install Rosetta before they can use any of their old PowerPC applications.

Also affected by Snow Leopard are those users who can't upgrade to Snow Leopard: those still using PowerPC Macs. Some of these users feel as if they are being "left behind" by Apple. While Windows users could theoretically install Windows 7 even on a relatively old PC (it has been demonstrated running on Pentium II PCs, although I wouldn't recommend using such a system for day-to-day work), even Mac users who bought PowerPC computers more recently cannot upgrade. It should be noted, however, that more and more applications are Intel-only, so Apple is not alone in this move.


On the other hand, Windows 7 presents its own unique problems. Although Windows 7 seems to at least be faster and more responsive than the much-derided Windows Vista, the difference doesn't appear to be by that great. Worse yet, Windows XP users will still face some of the incompatibility problems they experienced (or would have experienced) with Vista.

Users coming straight from Windows XP may still have problems finding some things due to the differences in the way things like the control panel are set up. While I feel that Windows 7's way of doing things is actually better, those who are used to doing things the Windows XP way will undoubtedly have problems.

The Windows 7 taskbar definitely has the potential to confuse users. While it is possible to switch to the classic taskbar, quite a few inexperienced users may not realize this is even possible, and may be thoroughly annoyed by the new feature.

Another problem is that while Windows XP Mode can help on the software compatibility side, the processor must have hardware support for virtualization in order for it to work. This has the potential to confuse the consumer even more considering the fact that Intel's budget processors typically do not have support for hardware virtualization, and support for virtualizating even among distinct product families can be inconsistent. AMD has been far more consistent, which could prove the be beneficial to the company. If retailers fail to make it clear to users which PCs are XP Mode compatible and which ones aren't, many users with old software could be especially angered when they find out that their new (or existing) computer with a copy of Windows 7 that supposedly supports the feature can't run it.


Of course, what many users are failing to realize is that Windows XP had the same kinds of problems when it was first released. It was criticized for its instability as well as its incompatibility with many old DOS applications as well as some older Windows apps. Of course, Windows XP improved greatly with service pack releases, and XP is currently the most widely used version of Windows.

Of course, there is no real solution to these problems. If new operating systems didn't include any new features, the companies that produce them wouldn't be able to sell them using their current business models. And, when you think about it, the thought of not having moved on from Windows 9x to Windows XP is absurd now. Somewhat ironically, the time between the release of Windows 95 and the release of Windows XP was a bit over 6 years, while the time between the release of XP and the upcoming release of Windows 7 will have been 8 years. While this is a testament to the quality of Windows XP, only so much life can be had out of an operating system in the consumer market. On the other hand, the lifecycles of some products are ridiculous. It's not Microsoft's fault that hardware vendors don't bother to create drivers for newer operating systems. It's also not Microsoft's fault that many of these drivers are subpar, and can be the cause of "Windows" instability; consider that if Microsoft were to enforce stricter standards, even fewer device makers might create updated drivers for new operating systems. Apple only avoids these problems because of the limited set of hardware on which OS X runs.

There are, of course, some ways to alleviate some of these problems.

One interesting possibility would be a subscription-based operating system. This could offer vendors a way to not force people to buy a completely new operating system every couple of years while still having a valid business plan. Newer elements could be modularized and added to compatible systems in the future, while underlying modules (such as those relating to drivers) could remain the same if compatibility would be broken by an update. This, of course, would introduce its own problems. Not everybody has an internet connection, and those who don't would likely be forced to call in. At any rate, it would likely require some time to renew the subscription. It could also anger consumers and make them feel as if they don't really have control over their computers.

As far as processor virtualization support goes, the key would be more consistency across product lines and at least being consistent when using such a feature (or a lack thereof) in order to segment the market. Intel has announced that hardware virtualization will be added to some additional processors.

In the end, consumers can do a few things to keep their experience is positive as possible. Before buying a product, check for reviews online. For example, go to Google and enter the name of the product you are thinking about buying and "review". It is even better if you can enter the specific model of the product that you are looking at buying, to see if it might be an older version and/or might have problems not present in other iterations of the same product. Also, proprietary formats, particularly connectors, can be a headache if there is not enough industry investment into them. Look into these technologies carefully, and be wary that they might not work with every device, and if they break, you might not be able to replace them easily.

Finally, don't forget one important fact: there are people out there that would be happy to help you, whether you are a beginner or seasoned veteran in the tech world. Chances are that there is a forum for your product (or type of product) where you can get help from others. Doing so can make what would otherwise be a major problem into a learning experience, and you just might find that the technology isn't so unfriendly after all.

AppleInsider has recently released an article about how the Macintosh's business marketshare almost tripled over this recent summer.


This is a fairly interesting fact. Apple's consumer sales have gone down recently, which is not surprising when considering Apple's prices and the current state of the economy. The growth in small business sales will no doubt help to make up for this. According to AppleInsider, that's an increase from 61,000 units sold to 188,000 for the quarter. In marketshare, this has brought them from 1.9% to 5.6% for small business.

So, while consumers have stopped buying expensive Macs, businesses have started buying them. Interesting, considering how business-oriented Microsoft tries to be with their Small Business Server products. It would seem to make sense that small businesses would turn to Windows-based PCs when considering cost as well as hardware compatibility. One does have to remember, however, that with boot camp and products such as Parallels that Macs can run Windows. Still, that would push up the cost of ownership even more.

So the question is, why has Apple been so suddenly successful in the small business field? There is no clear-cut answer. I have a few theories, however. Perhaps instead of buying new computers with Windows Vista pre-installed, these companies are hoping to continue using Windows XP with a new Mac. Macs have typically had excellent hardware quality, and small businesses may factor in the cost of having a machine repaired if it breaks down when they make their decision to buy. And perhaps the greater initial cost of buying an additional copy of Windows (and sometimes Parallels or a similar virtual machine product for the Mac) isn't so bad after all. The base iMac is priced at $1199, which isn't too bad. And for applications that only require word processing or where a company used to have a computer and still has the old monitor, keyboard, and mouse, there is always the Mac mini which starts at a reasonable $599.

At any rate, it will be interesting to see whether or not this type of growth continues, and whether small businesses also turn to Apple for server products (such as the Xserve with OS X Server).

People have done some pretty crazy things with Mac minis, from Millennium Falcon case mods to installing a Mac mini in a car. It is easy to see how versatile the Mac Mini can be with its small size and decent specs at a reasonable price. This has resulted in the little Mac being used more and more as a web server.


Some web hosting companies have either been offering mini-based hosting services as an option. Others have made it their specialty. At any rate, it seems to make sense. The mini is so small that they installed in high density in a datacenter. For physical dedicated servers (not virtual machines), this really makes sense because hosting companies can fit more in less space. A good example of a dedicated Mac mini host would be macminicolo.net, where you can send in a mini or buy one from their site and they provide the web services, so you actually own the mini. Sites such as this one offer Mac mini collocation and mini dedicated servers among their other Linux-based services.

Of course, you could just take a Mac mini of your own and make it a web server at your house if your ISP allows it. Even without a static IP, there are sites that offer to have an address that will always link to even a dynamic address. One blog has articles on how to set up an apache web server, an email server, MySQL, PHP and more on a Mac mini. Personally, I'm wondering how well a dedicated gaming server running under OS X or Windows would do on the mini as well (considering the fact that dedicated servers need processing power, not graphics).

We've all heard of Apple's unique offerings in the consumer desktop segment, the Mac Mini and the iMac. While the iMac has sold decently, the Mac Mini evidently has not sold as well as Apple has hoped. In fact, there are rumors that Apple may phase it out completely.


While the Mac Mini is pretty neat when it comes to size, it is expensive for what you get, and there are no upgrade options. The iMac, on the other hand, is limiting; those who already have monitors or don't want to be restricted to one monitor don't want an all-in-one. If you do want upgradeability, the only option is the Mac Pro, which costs more than $2000 USD for a base model.

Why can't Apple release a machine for the rest of us?

I'm sure Apple is hoping that those who long for/need upgradeability will jump for the Mac Pro. However, I also think that Apple is losing quite a few customers here. Surely Apple, of all companies, could come up with something original that definitely isn't a commodity PC in form factor but that is capable of being upgraded to a good extent and can take a decent video card. It's not asking much. It seems to me that this is a pretty big problem for those who want OS X but need this kind of machine (not a Mac Pro).

With Apple suffering because of the economic situation, a product like this would be aptly timed and perfectly appropriate. The only question is whether or not Apple will see it that way.

So the October 14 MacBook event is said and done.

As we saw, there were many rumors leading up to the event regarding what Apple might announce. The most-hyped of those rumors turned out to be false.

It is interesting to note that the rumors about the manufacturing process and the networked televisions were both "confirmed." As the event showed, Apple is using what could be described as a "revolutionary" manufacturing process. But more on that later. What is interesting is that nothing in the event was related to networked televisions. Might Apple be working on networked televisions and just not have announced them at the event? Or perhaps this was pure rumor or even a tactic meant to mislead.

At any rate, this entire ordeal hasn't seemed that good for Apple. Their stock went down because of the event, just as it went down when they announced the iPod Nano refresh. There was so much hype surrounding the event that it virtually took the spotlight on what the event was really about - notebooks. And when Apple did announce their refresh, it just didn't seem to be anything big. There were already pictures out there of a chassis that looked like it had been made out of a single block of aluminum. Brick turned out to be what most everybody already thought it would be: a new way of manufacturing notebooks. And so Job's keynote seemed more an announcement of the obvious than of something great. The "one more thing" event turned out to be a MacBook refresh, bringing the graphics up to the Geforce 9400M instead of an integrated Intel chip. We saw a sub-$1000 notebook, but it was priced at $999 instead of the rumored $899 or $799.

It seems to me that Apple should do a better job keeping its manufacturers and employees quiet. A company such as Apple has much to loose over rumors like these. It seems as though Apple has really lost control of the rumor machines so instead of a product seeming like a long-shot come true it seems like an obvious revelation. Try harder, Apple. Surprise us with products that we couldn't have possibly imagined just a few years ago.

Rumors have been circulating around the web about just what is known as Apple's "Brick" is. They came in waves, starting mostly with Mac Mini updates, moving on to Macbook rumors including a netbook and the design process rumor as well as Nvidia graphics. And now, the latest rumor is that Apple will release networked televisions.

Whatever Brick is, it will supposedly be unveiled as part of a "one more thing" presentation at the end of the October 14th Macbook refresh announcement.

I'm going to try to tackle all of this piece by piece, so bear with me.

Mac Mini: The Mac Mini rumor seemed to pass by quickly. The Mini has changed little from its inception, mostly just "behind-the-scenes" hardware changes such as processor upgrades. Many think that the Mini needs a refresh, and it's hard not to agree. However, it seems doubtful that the Brick is related to the Mac Mini. The Mini is Apple's cheapest desktop product, and you have to, as they say, BYODKM. That is, you have to buy the monitor as well as a keyboard and mouse separately in order to use the computer. The first thing that makes this rumor seem unlikely is that this is a Macbook refresh event that we are talking about here, so it would make little sense for the "one more thing" at the event would be a Mac Mini refresh. Also, the Brick turning out to be a Mini refresh would be, needless to say, disappointing. That's not to say that it isn't, just that it seems unlikely that Apple would give that much attention to it. But then again, the recent announcement of the iPod Nano refresh was ultimately extremely disappointing for many and has done very little for a struggling Apple (see The Economy and Consumer Electronics). Hopefully Apple has learned their lesson, and if this is a Mac Mini refresh, they at least execute it properly.

Macbook Netbook: Rumors began to turn to the possibility of Brick being part of the Macbook line, possibly a subnotebook (like the Macbook Air). An editor for Wired, Leander Kahney, suggested that the Brick might be a netbook. Kahney proposes that the Brick may actually be a netbook with two touch screens connected at a hinge, like the OLPC (One Laptop Per Child) XO-2. This would allow for the laptop to be used for multiple functions depending on the way the screen is tilted. This seems more like wishful thinking than a good prediction, however. Many have been hoping for something like this for a long time, but it seems unlikely considering Apple's history. Who knows, maybe Apple will surprise us.

Manufacturing Process: This rumor, which was said to have been confirmed by an anonymous Apple employee, states that Apple's Brick is not a product but instead a way of making a product. The rumor claims that Apple would start using lasers and jets of water to cut Macbook chassises out of a "brick" of aluminum. This could result in designs that would supposedly make for a stronger, smoother, and lighter Macbook. The amount of screws could be greatly reduced, or external screws could be eliminated entirely with some good engineering. Finally, the process could allow for more innovate designs, which would definitely be a plus for a company like Apple. Other claims are that the process would reduce costs and give Apple a competitive edge.

Networked Television: Now this would be something. According to Nate Lanxon, Jason Calacanis, a so-called "tech celebrity," has confirmed that Apple's Brick is really a networked television. This would be much like a television with an integrated Apple TV, a device released by Apple that allows for the streaming of music and video over a network through ethernet or wirelessly using 802.11n wireless. Apple clearly makes some beautiful displays. However, this rumor seems suspicious. With the Apple TV already on the market (and not selling too well at that), Apple would have to give the general public a really good reason to buy their new televisions. Many who would be interested in this kind of product have probably already bought an Apple TV. While Apple's more loyal fans would probably buy one, others may question why they should pay more, especially when many already have HDTVs. It's not something you upgrade every 5 minutes. Perhaps, however, Apple could make it worth the people's while. What if, instead of having to buy cable, Apple offered an online TV service instead? The service might not cover every single channel at first, but this could be the future of broadcasting. With the current economic downturn, perhaps if Apple had a cheap enough service (Apple and cheap rarely mix) they could get the masses to switch. If Apple could do something unique and desirable enough, I am sure they could get a pretty good userbase going.

Since the event is supposed to be tomorrow, I will update the blog with new reviews and opinions tomorrow as information is released (or leaked). Stay tuned.

Have a Mac and like the features and power of Firefox, but prefer the look of Safari?

There's an easy solution to your dilemma: Camino.

Camino is made by Mozilla, the same organization that makes Firefox. It has all the features you would expect from a Mozilla-made browser adapted to the Mac GUI.

Plus, Camino uses Mozilla's Gecko layout engine, which is the same as Firefox, meaning pages should render the same. And Camino is, of course, free and open source. Check it out today.