Dogger Blue's Profile

  • May 09, 2007
  • 34
  • 0

Latest comments made by: Dogger Blue

  • "Dogger Blue, there’s bad and then there’s bad." Well I've had several mice whose scroll wheels lasted no more than six months before requiring a cleaning -- which is always a difficult and annoying process. I haven't heard any claims for the Mighty Mouse that are significantly quicker to clog than this. When one of your other scroll wheel mice happens to clog quickly (dust is rather random you know), do you blame the brand manufacturer and start writing articles against them, or do you just think, "Hmm. That was quick. I'd better clean it pretty thoroughly or it'll happen pretty quickly again." I stand by my comments that the problem is with the whole concept of a scroll wheel, which is bound to fail in every mouse I've ever used, sooner or later. Many times, sooner. I haven't noticed any particular being especially vulnerable. I don't find "there's bad and then there's bad" to be a great counterpoint. It simply makes it clear that although all scroll wheels fail, you've decided to take this particular failure personally.
    Dogger Blue had this to say on May 09, 2007 Posts: 34
    Mighty Mouse Must Die!
  • How did "I think Apple should Save Millions in Not Submitting" become "Apple to Save Millions in Not Submitting"? Write accurate headlines, please.
  • Okay, Reality Check time. Every scroll wheel on every mouse I have ever used for any length of time eventually gets 'clogged' -- and by clogged I mean it stops working -- half of them I have discovered upon disassembly stopped working because a hair from my caveman-like fingers got traps in the working, not exactly a "clog" but since I regularly shed little hairs from my hands and there are millions of other people out there like me, this is a design flaw in all scroll wheels. Once I identified hair and dust as the main problem rather than grime, I started solving the problem with my scroll wheel mice (none of them is Mighty Mouse) by just lifting it to my mouth blowing a strong jet of air into it. Moving around the dust and/or hairs is not as good as clearing them, but it usually works for a few weeks to a month. The Mighty Mouse looks a little bit harder to blow of jet of air into, but make no mistake here: the main problem is that the scroll wheel itself is a flawed idea that must eventually die and be replaced by something else. I hate scroll wheels. I hate the fact that I get used to them and they ALWAYS eventually screw me over. It's like an addiction. The Mighty Mouse is probably even worse because it feels so nice to use it that losing it is going be a bitch (and AGAIN -- INEVITABLE). What happens to the whole idea of a mouse with almost NO MOVING PARTS! The industry gave us that with laser tracking and then inexplicably took it back forcing us to replace ball roller maintenance with scroll wheel maintenance. HELLO! I don't want to have to do any maintenance on my mouse!!!! This is not an Apple-specific issue (though maybe the MM craps out a little faster, I don't know, my mice crap out pretty fast though). The whole mouse industry is brain-dead on this! Give me touch-senstivie scrolling or give me death!
    Dogger Blue had this to say on May 04, 2007 Posts: 34
    Mighty Mouse Must Die!
  • Apple will not do a standalone game console for a simple reason. The only way to make money on such a system today is to give it away almost for free (or if you're Microsoft, at a loss), and then make all of your money back licensing content. But Apple doesn't license content. If you look at all of their business models this is something they have assiduously avoided, and they had plenty of opportunities to get into it. Why don't they do this? I believe that Apple's business model is to focus themselves in a few interrelated directions and leveraging the cooperation of these technologies in favour of both their customers and their own bottom line. You can't do this if you buy yourself into markets that create a conflict of interest. If you are generating income from licensing content, then you are going to want to tightly control that content as much as you can. This works directly against your interest in smoothing the use of it by the customer. For example, if Apple had decided to license access to iTunes and iPods to podcasters and musicians the way Sony and Microsoft do with their consoles (seems backwards doesn't it -- that's the gaming industry), Steve Jobs could never have written his anti-DRM essay without a shareholder revolt. If you want to remain lean and mean and to make moves nobody else can, don't conflict yourself with cross purposes the way everybody else does. Apple knows this, which is why they do not sell licenses to write for their hardware. Which is why they will never get into the gaming console business as it currently stands. Sweetening the iPod with a few games is another matter, because the iPod is plenty profitable all on its own. It would be impossible to achieve this and remain competitive in the console market.
    Dogger Blue had this to say on Apr 13, 2007 Posts: 34
    Why Apple Will Never Make A Game Console
  • "Knowing that I already have a Users folder and the multiple Library folder(s), it seemed reasonable to delete it." Obviously using a definition of "reason" that has been heretofore unknown to me.
    Dogger Blue had this to say on Apr 10, 2007 Posts: 34
    And They Said the Mac Was Intuitive
  • What a bunch of nonsense. Let me demonstrate what a harebrained article this is with a simple comparison. iPod owns the great majority of the MP3 player market. Universal 'pulling out' of this market because they can't extort a dollar per unit would be like pulling all their CD sales out of Walmart: it's NOT going to happen. If they threaten this it will obviously be an empty threat and Apple will simply ignore it without consequence. And the idea that the other publishers will 'follow suit' is even more preposterous. Can you imagine all record companies refusing to sell CDs at Walmart? They might as well threaten to declare bankruptcy. Or even better: threaten to hold their breath until Steve Jobs gives in. WAKE UP AND SMELL REALITY. Apple is holding all the cards, here, on the next generation music sales playing field. Microsoft holds exactly none. This is why Microsoft was forced to bend over while Apple will continue to whistle happily along at .99 cents a song.
    Dogger Blue had this to say on Dec 07, 2006 Posts: 34
    Is Microsoft counting on Steve Jobs' Obstinance?
  • Actually, the site DOES try to give reasons for why the iPod is bad. They think to sites that criticise the iPod especially on its cumbersome and expensive battery replacement system. (Of course, you can get third party batteries for the iPod, but they don't mention that. And yes it is a difficult procedure but replacing the battery on the Sansa player is not exactly a piece of cake, you have to undo a bunch of tiny screws. It's still easier than the iPod though because there is an expectation that the user will do the replacing.) They also make brief reference to "restrictive formats", which is of course laughable, because the iPod plays at least as many open formats as the Sansa, and although the only DRM paid for tracks available on the iPod lock you into iTunes, the only DRM paid for tracks available on the Sansa lock you into Windows Media Player, so this is a complete wash. So yes the advertising is misleading and contains misleading claims. But you can't say they didn't TRY to criticise the iPod itself. And crying foul over their mocking of iPod users is just hypocritical, because Apple does that in spades. It's all fair game. What's good for the goose, etc... DB.
    Dogger Blue had this to say on May 25, 2006 Posts: 34
    When Is It Okay to Insult iPod Users?
  • There's nothing wrong with Apple's ads, and there's nothing wrong with SanDisk's campaign, either. Suck it up and stop whining, people. DB.
    Dogger Blue had this to say on May 24, 2006 Posts: 34
    When Is It Okay to Insult iPod Users?
  • Little math lesson for you. If the platform with 95% market share has 114,000 viruses, how many virus would you expect there to be on a platform with 5% market share? Purely by the numbers, that is. The answer is: 114000 / 95 * 5 = 6000 (not 1200)
    Dogger Blue had this to say on May 08, 2006 Posts: 34
    Do Macs Need to Run Extra Antivirus Software?
  • Complete nonsense, for one simple reason. Consumers don't compete for developers. It's the other way around. Any developer who wants any significant presence among Mac users needs to release an OS X version. That is never going to change, and any developer who thinks that will change, might as well just write off all their Mac business because some other developer will come along and take advantage of the fact that they have just left the door wide open for competitors. This is some of that magical Mac thinking that developers make Mac products because of letter writing campaigns or for ANY OTHER REASON than that they want the money. That's the only reason, okay? Repeat after me. They want the money. If they're going to tell Mac users they have to switch to Windows to use their products, then guess what? They ain't gonna get the money for long. Mac developers aren't doing us any favours. They want our money pure and simple. They ain't gonna get it unless they continue to put out a Mac product. Simple economics renders this article completely null and void. DB.
    Dogger Blue had this to say on Apr 06, 2006 Posts: 34
    Boot Camp: Apple's Insanely Bad Idea
  • Adobe would be totally shooting itself in the foot to give Mac users the finger and tell them to buy a copy of Windows. That is fairytale-land, never gonna happen. That's just them opening up the door wide open to a competitor in a professional market that they currently dominate. DB.
  • Camino is faster than Safari. No question about it. And the longer the browser is open, the greater the difference. Camino deals way better with the 'too-many-tabs-and-windows' scenario than Safari, which resorts rather quickly to the 'put-the-user-on-hold' beachball. Websites that don't respond quickly eat Safari's lunch -- Camino hums right along. Firefox is slower than both. And Opera is S-L-O-W I don't know where anyone got the idea that it's even in the league.
    Dogger Blue had this to say on Sep 23, 2005 Posts: 34
    Safari Improved
  • Okay, it was a cheap shot. But it really is annoying the way nobody ever spells Apple's products correctly. You should know better by now than to trust any variation not found on or on the product itself.. And actually, Chris, you are the talent around here. At least you can string a halfway decent sentence together. It's more pleasing to read someone who writes above a fifth grade level, which is more than I can say for some of your colleagues. Call me 'elitist' I suppose. Not sure where 'angry' or 'zealot' came from. From the shotgun approach I suppose, which some people use in place of actual intelligence.
    Dogger Blue had this to say on Sep 21, 2005 Posts: 34
    Lessons From the nano
  • "The Shuffle is a screenless iPod (the lack of the screen explains why Apple could afford to use a capital “S” in the product’s name)" Uh ... there is no capital 'S' in 'iPod shuffle'. >snort< Typical. Of all the Mac websites out there, I find this one to be the most consistently without a clue.
    Dogger Blue had this to say on Sep 20, 2005 Posts: 34
    Lessons From the nano
  • You didn't really address the upgradeability factor at all. All of your arguments apply at any time in the last 15-20 years of computer history. It has always been possibly to get equivalent speed from external devices as from internal ... high-speed SCSI card, anyone? Etc., etc... The reason people like an easily upgradeable box has nothing to do with that, and never did, so your narrow counterargument is completely irrelevant. Simply put, people who like to expand internally like to do so because (a) for obvious reasons they want to keep the physical collection of satellite devices to a minimum, (b) it's simply useless and wasteful to keep powering internal devices which have been superseded and will no longer be used, and (c) it's cheaper, usually by more than half (duh!). Yes, there are some advantages to getting an external device but absolutely nothing has changed about this trade-off today vs. ten years ago. On any computer equipped with the high-speed interfaces of the day (i.e. FireWire or SCSI), speed of interface has *never* a particularly significant reason for going with an internal device. (In fact, with some flavours of SCSI that were popular in towers, the truth has been quite the opposite.) Therefore, there will always be a big box (big enough for additionnal bays) and your theory is plainly bunk.
    Dogger Blue had this to say on Aug 30, 2005 Posts: 34
    Apple Towers: Heading for the Long Goodbye