Kyle Brady: Blog » Windows

Windows 7 Looks Interesting [Old Content]

Kyle Brady — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 21:16:56 +0000

I'll be the first person to admit that I don't like Windows, and haven't for years. I've gotten frustrated with their lack of user control, their continuing assumptions on the intelligence of users, and the general crappy slowness that has become so pervasive in the operating system.

I've been using Linux (Ubuntu) for awhile, but my desktop won't install it... there's a problem with some hardware I have, so I've had to use Vista for the last 8 months. I'm not happy about it, and the only reason it's functional is because I have so much bleeding-edge hardware that the slowness is neglible.

However, I was pretty surprised at the hoopla over the Windows 7 Beta release awhile ago, and found myself interested in what may be happening on the inside of Microsoft. I've always had a love/hate relationship with Microsoft and Bill Gates, a combination of awe in their sheer dominance, and annoyance for the same reason; so this potential "radical change" in the Windows product appealed to my curiousity.

And now, today, I came across a poll from 200 users of the Beta. Take a look at what they put together and tell me you're not interested. That you're not scared. That you're not sitting in a corner, crying, with your thumb in your mouth.

Because, folks, it looks like Microsoft is ready to be back on top. We already knew that, thanks to an interview with Ray Ozzie that made me quite scared of the next few years in software (but somehow hopeful too), but they apparently mean it. Think about it: Microsoft put out a beta version of their next operating system, pretty much on time, and it got good reviews and feedback.

This is difficult to imagine in a world where Vista was lauded as the end-all-be-all of gamechanging software, but this poll seems to fit with the rumors I've been hearing around the 'net.

Microsoft finds itself, once again in a corner. But when do they perform and innovate best?

When they feel threatened, or feel a need to obliterate any and all competition.

The Beast has risen, and he has the name of Microsoft...

Netflix FAIL [Self]

Kyle Brady — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 06:58:51 +0000

I'll be the first one to admit it... I love Netflix. With my addiction to all-things-SciFi, getting movies on a regular basis is great, and it lets me quickly catch up on all the movies that were before I become genre-sentient (or alive). Through it I've come to love many "great" series: The Terminator, Rocky, Rambo, Die Hard, etc.

But there's one thing that really bothers me: Netflix's "Watch Instantly" Feature.

In a new era of digital media, where you can have movies delivered to your home or stream them to your TV, you'd think the company that has pioneered (and continues to innovate) this market would make a better and more informed decision.

The FAILboat

Let's take a look at what happens when I try to watch a movie through my computer using Netflix:

Yep. That's right. I can't. All because I don't run Windows SP2 or higher, or use IE. Who would, in this day and age, restrict such a wonderful (and potentially highly revenue-generating) thing to such arkane requirements?

Demographics

Netflix, I think you should take a look at your demographics. Let's do a quick analysis.

The audience that made you popular were geeks. Highly technically adept people that typically run the software they want, and spurn anything made by Microsoft. (Granted, this isn't always true, but it's true enough to work with.)

Your current userbase is most likely comprised of well-off white collar families, movie buffs, and geeks. Throw in a handful of college kids (who are probably highly technical as well), and you've got it.

Take a look at the recent browser metrics. If you believe even the lowest estimates, ~15% of the Internet uses Firefox. Not IE, but Firefox. And, given your userbase, I'm betting your server logs show something closer to 35%. Would you like to put odds on that?

While it's difficult to get a solid number on the amount of non-server computers running Linux, the numbers are growing. Dell and ASUS, among others, are now offering Linux as the pre-installed OS... not to mention the unbelievable growth of Ubuntu, a flavor of Linux.

Do The Math

So, movie geniuses... do the math. Even if "only" 20% of your users are on Firefox, and maybe 10% use Linux, why would you alienate such a large amount of your paying customers? Just because they don't conform to the money-hungry agenda of Microsoft doesn't mean they should be punished. Choosing a better, and free, alternative should be something to celebrate.

We may not be Anonymous, but we are angry nonetheless.

Technology

While we're at it, don't give us the "technological restrictions" excuse. Anyone who's worked with streaming media can tell you this is a load of crap. The only reason you can legitimately say your system is IE-dependent would be due to an ActiveX control... and in that case, you're just FUBAR'd already anyways.

I'm not sure how the current system works, but I see there really only being two ways for you to stream through a browser:

Using a Flash-based Player

Embedding a Streaming Video File

Flash is one of the most universal things on computers in this day and age... YouTube doesn't restrict their viewers to Windows + IE only, why should you?

And, if it's a streaming file, there's an easy answer too. People on Windows + FF should have no problems accessing a streaming file, even if it's in some Windows format... it will just automagically open Windows Media Player.

We are rising, join us while we still like you!

Those of us on Linux + FF know MORE THAN ENOUGH to be able to run a streaming file in a media player. Maybe it doesn't work when we click. But that doesn't really bother us, because we get what we want, and know how to do it. Chances are we already have the media player (and codecs) to support the format... all we need is the location of the stream. Which is very easy for you to give us.

Conclusion

In the end, any reason or excuse you can provide for these restrictions comes down to pure and utter nonsense. You need to resolve this issue, before your users get more frustrated (which may hurt you in the long run), and especially as the market share for Firefox and Linux continue to grow at unprecedented rates.

---------------------------------

Update (6/9/2008 12:32pm PST): Neil from Netflix (confirmed via IP address) posted a snarky rebuttal in Comment #1. See my equally snarky reply in Comment #2.

Linux Drivers, Much Needed [Old Content]

Kyle Brady — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 18:38:48 +0000

Linux drivers are apparently becoming a priority at different companies... this is a surprising, but not totally unexpected, move, especially when Adobe just launched a Linux version of Flex.

One of my only, and largest, complaints with Linux (since I run Ubuntu as my OS) is drivers. How can there be such an extensive library of drivers, with a GUI interface, for printers ("CUPS"), and yet other drivers are widely ignored? Installing wireless drivers is a huge undertaking, and many of the devices (especially embedded wireless) are just flat-out not supported.

Why is this the case? The easy answer is that despite people complaining and wanting this to change, companies have typically only released drivers for Windows and Mac OS's. To get these drivers to work on a Linux box, you have to either run a Windows-driver emulator, or wait until someone puts together a sloppy hack to get the devices working.

But with the recent rise of Ubuntu in the OS marketshare, we are no longer being completely ignored. Adobe is rumored to be developing a Linux port of CS3. Other companies are rumored to be preparing official drivers for release. And, most importantly of all, a "wireless driver manager" is going to be integrated into the Ubuntu system...

Who says Linux isn't user-friendly? Definitely much more than "ask me 17 times to confirm an action" Vista.