Microsoft Bob.

Some recent conversation made me recall the first time I ever used a PC. It was a 133 mhz Gateway machine that my parents bought for somewhere around three grand. After my dad set it up, my brother and I sat down and played with perhaps the greatest program ever written: Microsoft Bob.

The idea was to create an accessible user-interface for Windows, and in that regard, it widely considered one of the biggest failures in the history of the home PC. The program gave the user a virtual house with several “rooms” he could populate with props which performed various functions, including launching an internal calendar, address book, word processor, and more. It also introduced the helpful little characters that later evolved into those irritating “Office Assistants.” My seven- or eight-year-old mind, though, really didn’t understand the purpose of the program, beyond the fact that you could place all these cool props and make your own room. And goddammit, it was cool.

Idea: resurrect Bob. Allow the users to create an advanced, 3-dimensional house and fill it with whatever objects they want, linking different functions with applications or the web.

Wait. That would be a complete failure.

VIRUS!

I think it’s time we put an end to the pop-fiction of the computer virus, just one of the many systems used by unintelligent people to explain things which they can’t understand (see also: God, terrorists). If a computer is misbehaving, it simply must be caused by one of those damned computer viruses they used to talk about so much on Dateline in the 90’s! I’ve been computing without antivirus software of any kind for over ten years, and with a little bit of common sense, any actual viruses can be avoided with ease. Yet for some reason, people seem to assume that visiting any ordinary website can be responsible for “crashing” a computer. (That’s another generalization I can’t stand. What the hell does it mean when a computer is “crashed?”).

I’m writing this because the incompetent IT bum at my high school decided to come take me out of class to give me a macho talk about how I’m not allowed to surf the internet at school because I was the last one to use a certain computer before it “crashed” from a “virus,” and I was “surfing inappropriate websites.” And well, I sort of accidentally laughed in his face. Please don’t take away my computer priveleges, Todd Beeck!

Piracy.

I recently saw This Film Is Not Yet Rated, a great documentary about the de facto censorship of the MPAA and the incestuous nature of the conglomeration of big studios that we call Hollywood – you’ve probably heard of it. Very interesting stuff.

The film also touches briefly on the issue of the organization’s vendetta against online movie piracy. This is an issue I’ve explored quite a bit recently, and I think the MPAA’s war on “piracy” offers a very interesting parallel to the US government’s war on “terror.” Both attack a very fuzzy concept practiced by a very abstract group of people. The MPAA has tried to create an enemy which is in direct moral opposition to everything good out of the prepubescent pirates of the world in the same way that the Bush administration has villified, you know, everybody residing in the Middle East. Take a look at this press release released by the MPAA after the raid of Swedish BitTorrent giant The Pirate Bay and tell me that it doesn’t sound like the pompous, militaristic prose of the current US government. “Huge Worldwide Provider of Illegal Movies Told No Safe Harbor for Facilitators of Piracy!” Are you kidding? There may in fact be some very political factors behind the raid, as explored in the amateur documentary Steal This Film.

Of course, both of our generation’s great ideological wars boil down to money. The movie industry is a multi-billion dollar corporation in the same league as the oil and arms industries, every bit as steeped in the art of public relations and deception, and sporting ties to the government every bit as strong. Make no mistake: the MPAA does not care about the blue-collar workers of the film industry, and they most definitely do not care about art.

As much as I love seeing films on the big screen, I’ve been having a hard time morally justifying handing over 8 bucks to see a movie when I can download it with a few mouse clicks, with the added pleasure of knowing I’m doing my small part to disempower some of the biggest slime in the country.

Vinyl.

After spending quite a bit of time with my recently acquired turntable, I have to conclude that between vinyl and CD, vinyl is the superior format.

Yes, CD’s offer more clarity, and are infinitely more convenient to take on the go and can more easily be converted MP3 format. Yes, the CD is necessary for the digital, mobile lifestyle. But it still is a bastardization of the purity of wax.

If I am going to sit down and listen to an album, at this point, I would much rather be listening to the LP. The sound, in my opinion, is more pleasing; it is richer and more natural than the sterile feel of most CD’s, and offers a larger dynamic range. More importantly, though, I like the feeling of owning a physical embodiment of the artist’s creation pressed identically to the master. I like that you can faintly hear the music without having it hooked up to any speakers. It needs no decoding; every nuance of sound is contained within the grooves of the vinyl. And an LP provides a better overall experience of a specific album. Larger and more extensive art, clear/colored vinyl, and other small touches make it much more personal.

Also, I’ve found that the structure provided by the limited space on each side gives songs a better sense of context. Like on my copy of Animal Collective – Sung Tongs 2xLP I picked up from Prospero’s. I used to hate “Visiting Friends.” But the way it fits snugly on side 3 before the incredible sequence of “College,” “We Tigers,” “Mouth Wooed Her,” “Good Lovin Outside,” and “Whaddit I Done” on the last side makes it click somehow. And I find it interesting how opposing sides often have strikingly different feels, something you can never pick up on listening to the CD.

And, well, it’s fun to shop for records. While Kansas City is somewhat lacking in good record stores these days, it is a great feeling to pick up a cool, rare LP from a band you’re really into.

And dammit, Steve Albini said so.

foobar2000: the audio player you should be using.

foobar2000 (fb2k) is the most tightly-coded, flexible, and customizable audio player out there. I have mine loaded with about a dozen plug-ins, and it still takes up only a fraction of the resources iTunes or Winamp does; it loads in less than a second.

With a little time, your GUI can look something like this:

Sexy, right? Quit supporting bloated, unnecessarily-flashy audio software and give foobar a try. Download it here.

Obligatory iPhone post.

Apple and I have had a rocky relationship. Okay, I used to despise the company with a deep passion and denounced it at every chance I got. Recently, however, I’ve sort of come around, and realized that despite the fact that a large portion of their userbase are pompous assholes, and there typically is a cheaper, more fully featured alternative to any of their products, they do boast a very well thought-out, well designed, and exceptionally well presented family of products. While companies like Creative pump out new devices at a pretty rapid rate, Apple makes extremely calculated maneuvers, preferring to revise old products instead of introducing new ones if at all possible. So when Mr. Jobs does push out a new product, it’s a big deal.

After several years of speculation, Jobs revealed his iPhone to an eager press at his keynote at the Macworld Expo. I won’t bore you with a lengthy explanation — that’s what Engadget is for. Physically, it looks like an iPod video with a touch screen covering the front. It functions as a phone and MP3 player, in addition to running Mac OSX, allowing it to run any first party apps Apple chooses to release. Cool, right? As sexy as it looks and sounds, I can’t help but have a lot of worries about the device.

First of all, this baby is going to run $499 or $599 for a 4 GB or 8 GB, respectively — with a 2-year contract Cingular, the exclusive provider for the phone. This puts it pretty firmly out of the casual user’s grasp, into “enough money for a computer or a crappy car” territory. I’m sure it will be a hot gadget for business types, but I think Apple is underestimating the importance of the casual and teenage markets. The lower-end model costs as much as two iPods, and most people aren’t going to be able to justify a purchase, especially since everybody already has an iPod and a cell phone. Besides this, the exclusive agreement with Cingular prevents the phone from even being an option for the millions of Americans on T-Mobile or Sprint. Not smart.

The phone itself also makes me apprehensive — particularly the touch screen. It is operated with fingers, which immediately makes me think “gross.” I don’t want my phone to feel like those gross touch-screen you use for wedding registries at the department store, but I don’t want to wash my hands every time I want to change my song or make a phone call. And there’s no way the thing can be very durable; Apple certainly doesn’t have a reputation for making rugged products, and there’s no way a massive touchscreen can take much abuse. I want my electronics to stand up to a bit of abuse, and I could never feel comfortable sticking the phone I spent half of a thousand dollars on in my pocket.

The iPhone is the first device from Apple without a very defined focus. They are trying to present as something of a Swiss Army knife of cell phones, with phone, MP3, and computing capabilities, but this isn’t why people choose Apple. People went out and bought iPods because it played MP3’s, it played MP3’s well, and it made playing MP3’s easily. Similarly, people snatched up MacBooks because it offers straightforward, zero-hassle computing in a stylish package. Where does this fit in? I would be much more optimistic about the iPhone if it focused on phone capabilities; as it stands, the phone functionality seems tacked on, so much so that it almost seems odd for it to be the device’s name. If they had knocked the phone’s price down by two or three hundred dollars at the expense of OSX and the extra apps and opened it up to all service providers, we would have a new Razr-caliber trend phone, and Apple could release a separate handheld with OSX, and phone capabilities for that matter. As it stands, this device will make a small splash for well-off executives, but it’s far from a revolution; if Apple expects to reinvent the cellphone, they’d better rethink their strategy.