[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIS6G-HvnkU[/youtube]

The recent M$ advertisement targeting the relative expense of Apple computers as being elitist has stirred much commotion. As many websites have commented, the “not cool enough to be a Mac” comment made in the ad has peeved the folks at Cupertino.

You can spin the Mac vs PC argument in any fashion, arguing for the simplistic Mac designs or eye candy of OSX. The premium you pay for a Mac is self-explanatory–you get a nicer looking system with some (arguably) nicer hardware. Whether you buy a Mac sort of depends on how much money you’re willing to spend or how vain you are. Equivalent software applications exist for nearly all products, and any differences are simply personal preference.  End of story.

However, what I can say is that I can extrapolate some interesting conclusions about hardware and operating system preferences based on my web server traffic. Nearly all of my traffic hits from Apple computers come from the United States and its adjacent islands.  About 45% of my web traffic also identifies as Mac OS X, which is much higher than the actual market share of Apple computers.

1) Are Apple computers generally too expensive for non-US folks? Maybe. I assume that most middle-class wages outside of the US are relatively lower, and for many people, it’s simply not practical to pay nearly twice as much for a nicer looking computer with similar specs. You tell me. Contact me if you live outside of the US and have a Mac.

2) Since most of my traffic comes from academia and medical centers, I’m not surprised that I get a skewed distribution of Mac users on my website. However, why does this demographic tend to use Macs more? Are we all snobby bastards? Does Mac software suit our needs better?

I can only speak for myself. I owned an iBook (circa 2004) while in medical school. It was smooth, white, and woke up from suspended mode incredibly efficiently. However, it had a 1.2ghz processor and 256mb ram. With multiple browser tabs open, the system crawled along. It would not even run emulation software. I hawked it off once its usb port died (high quality hardware, eh?). I now have an IBM Thinkpad T42 (circa 2003), with 1.5gb ram and 1.7ghz processor. It runs most programs like a dream, except video editing and graphics intense processes. I miss having a native unix shell, but these days, I don’t have time to be hacking scripts anyway.

computing tech

After months of getting bombarded television commercials, billboards, tickers, and flyers about the “hip” java offerings at McDonald’s, I caved in and bought an iced latte. At $2.79, the McLatte is more economial than its Starbucks or Peet’s counterpart (usually $3.99+), but how does it compare in quality?

Frankly, I haven’t had an iced latte in at least a year. One, because they’re expensive. Two, because vendors these days mix in insane amounts of sugar to appeal to the masses. If I wanted to have my coffee as a dessert, I’d rather eat ice cream. Nonetheless, I think McCafe achieves its purpose in expanding its empire. I’m not sure where the McDonald’s java beans originate from, but I’d imagine they’re from the same batch that is used for all of their coffee. Their coffee brew is actually decent, mind you (as long as the employee isn’t combining old brew with the fresh). The clear, hemispheric lids for their iced coffees are the same as those used in the McFlurry and sundaes–this makes great economical sense. The coffee itself is slightly more dilute than the Starbucks rendition. They may have not considered the ice dilution factor in the iced coffees, or it may not have been practical to make two different concentrations given the overall sales volume. I actually prefer a more dilute drink anyway–caffeine is too addictive anyway.

I give them a thumb’s up. It’s good to see competition.

misc food

After I watched all 5 seasons of “The Office“, I embarked on a “Man vs Wild” marathon. It’s somewhat of a realistic count of the adventures of Bear Grylls, who was once the youngest guy to scale Mt. Everest. For most of the episodes, he shows the viewers survival tactics in some of the world’s most remote areas. While there are some rumors that on some episodes, he spends part of his time off the camera in luxury hotels rather than in the wild as portrayed, the majority of his adventures are impressive. Aside from being able to eat anything raw (Yak eyes, puff adders, spiders) and able to build rafts from fig vines, Bear Grylls is well-versed–these abilities have enabled him to produce five seasons of adventures.

Aside from the instinctual thrill of watching this survivorman dive into waterfalls, I enjoy analyzing the science behind all of his tactics. On one episode, he explains the Dakota fire pit as a means to sustain a fire in a windy environment and mask your tracks. While I may never actually build one of those myself, it’s interesting to learn about fundamental skills. Bear Grylls also comments much on the nutritional value of the insects, creatures, and animals he manages to stuff in his mouth. Yes, snails have high protein content. So do snakes.  From a scientific standpoint, this point is fundamental since the aforementioned animals are highly muscular. And muscle is built from amino acids (roughly). Nonetheless, I find it amusing to hear these correct statements from someone who didn’t go through years of college. I’ve finished three seasons so far…two more to go.

misc life

I think the local hospital was built on what used to be a pond or reservoir. There are many fowl hanging around the parking lot and the manmade pond in front of the hospital. I took this photo with my phone when I was leaving around midnight. Poor ducks. It’s actually sad to be part of the problem displacing nature from its original habitat.

misc humor

Last week G$$gle rebadged Grandcentral‘s phone service and added a few new toys, including SMS. For the last year or more after acquiring Grandcentral, G$$gle had been quiet about any developments. I had been using Grandcentral for the past three years, and for the most part, it worked well as an alternative catch-all number to forward all of my calls. The call screening option is useful, although I would have preferred to have a more transparent screening process without prompts.

After the makeover, GVoice still has the same call screening process. If enabled, unknown callers will be prompted to record their name before being able to continue further. On my caller id, I only see my telephone number, indicating that the caller used my GVoice number. There is no way of identifying a new caller’s telephone number AND knowing that they called using my GVoice number instead of my cell or home number. It would be ideal if new caller could be identified by a marker id in addition to their number like, “GV xxx-xxx-xxxx”. This identifier is important because most of my important contacts still dial through directly to my cellphone instead of through my GVoice number. I don’t want to have to pick up my phone unnecessarily while on rounds in the hospital.

The few welcome improvements over Grandcentral include SMS, outgoing calls, and a more sophisticated web interface. SMS is huge, because the point of having a catch-all number is for it to be as transparent as possible. While my occupation has balled me into adding an SMS package to my phone plan, Grandcentral was essentially useless for me without SMS. Outgoing calls are a huge perk, albeit complicated to navigate. With Grandcentral, I was not able to place outgoing calls on my home or cell phones without exposing my those numbers. This was confusing to my contacts who had my Grandcentral number. This outgoing call feature is now available with Google, and international calling at a reasonable rate is also available. I can also text international numbers through Google on a payment account linked through Google Voice instead of my cellular provider. The downside is that I have to dial into the phone service and navigate some menus before being able to dial out. I would like a speed dial option in the future, if that is possible.

Overall, I like the improvements that Google has made. The voicemail transcriptions are remarkably accurate, probably due to the data harvesting from their 411 service.  Great business initiative, I might ask. (And for you folks at Google, if you are thinking of branching more into the medical arena in addition to your EMR system, contact me. I have ideas!)

computing tech