Virtualization software like VMware and VirtualBox allows you to run multiple OS’s on a single system without rebooting. This capability is convenient for cross-platform testing of web software without the need for multiple systems. I’ve always used it as a bridge between my linux and windows applications–having a script-ready bash terminal makes batch processing of data a breeze. About a year ago, a friend introduced me to virtualizing with the same operating system. Something like running Windows within Windows.

Why would you ever do this? I wondered the same thing, but it adds a good layer of security to my computer. Since virtual drives are only accessible via specified shared folders, any disaster within the virtual operating system is contained. This is most applicable to my VPN connection into the hospital. My employer uses a Citrix web interface to allow outside connections into the hospital intranet.

For those of you who have used Citrix, it is bloated junkware that pollutes your system files. Moreover, it does not work well with certain software firewalls, like COMODO. After uninstallation, the program litters your folders with nondescript file links and useless files. I found that I can contain the installation through my virtualized OS. Neat huh?

Whenever my hospital junks Citrix or requires another bloated software suite, I can throw it into my virtual OS. If the installation trashes my system, I can just delete my virtual drive and start over. No damage done to the host.

computing tech

I was excited to see a hardware refresh on Apple’s iPod Touch last week, but it’s unfortunate that the new models have technology that isn’t fully implemented, such as 802.1n draft or a camera. Moreover, the clock speed increase in the new models (600mhz) and Voice Control/microphone capabilities aren’t available in the budget 8gb model.

Simply put, that is ingenious marketing.

The new Nano includes an FM transmitter and a camera, features that the neither the classic nor the touch sport. This obviously allows Apple to advertise a wide product line and focus its tech support on specific products. The base software kernel in all of its products is similar, and allows for efficient cross-platform upgrades.

As a consumer, however, I’d want everything in my portable device. As a medical professional, I’d choose the iPod Touch/iPhone to be my technology device. Obviously, Skyscape and Epocrates, two medical software companies, have already gravitated to this platform. The hardware acceleration on the Touch allows for gaming, but also image viewing (CT/MRI). We can easily modify the iPod Touch output to a projector for presentations.  The downside of this technology? Price.

The 16gb and 32gb models are similar in pricing to full-sized netbooks or 12″ thinbooks, which can arguably “do more” than the ipods. It’s a tough sell.

Which product would you choose if you could only have one?

computing computing, tech

Ophthalmic pathologist Mort Smith sports a tablet PC for his lectures. I suppose that a nifty touch screen can come in handy when you’d like to circle some Merkel cells in your presentation for emphasis. Tablet PC’s are traditionally geared toward the mobile user who simply needs technology for note-taking and flashy presentations. These systems typically range from the 2lb-<4lb range, with limited video acceleration and slower disk platters (with the exception of those with solid-state drives).

I don’t find that tablet PC’s are entirely useful for medicine, since netbooks and superlights a la MacBook Air are plentiful. However, there is potential for tablet PC’s to be useful for the niche market of ophthalmology. We draw. We label diagrams with color, all in our progress notes. A touchscreen serves as the bridge between the ophthalmic exam and EMR. This union is not novel–Mayo Clinic’s ophthalmology department implements its own ophthalmic EMR that synchronizes seamlessly with the entire hospital’s records.

TabletPCreview.com, the de facto standard review site for tablets is a good starting point to explore the current product line. These systems do command a higher price tag than their non-tablet counterparts, but it is impressive how much power you can fit into the package. I’ve been entertaining the idea of acquiring a tablet for a while, and I almost made the jump until rumors surfaced about Apple’s venture into the table realm. That is a killer hardware that I’m itching to get my hands on.

It will be an interesting product cycle in the upcoming year…

computing, medicine ophthalmology, tech

Over the past ten to fifteen years, compact fluorescent bulbs (CFL) have surfaced as a viable alternative to incandescent lighting that we’ve used since Edison first developed the tungsten filament lightbulb. It’s a great means to reduce our carbon footprint and lower our utility bills in the process. In cities like NYC where electricity costs a whopping 13+ cents/kWh with enormous delivery charges, you can reduce your electric bills from lighting by over 50% with CFLs.

I’ve been using CFL’s since college days. The bulb I have in the track light to the left has been with me since senior year of college. It still runs strong, and uses about 13-watts of power to generate luminosity equivalent to a 75-watt incandescent bulb. You’ve probably read some of the shortcomings of CFL’s, which includes flickering, delayed startup, and incompatibility with dimmer switches. While these problems have been mostly remedied with stringent quality control and built-in dimming ballasts, the one gripe I’ve had with CFL’s is that their intensities degrade over time.

My 13-watt CFL bulb is made by GE; I’ve had it for about 6 years. I recently bought a 9-watt NVision CFL bulb to place in my side table lantern. When compared to each other, it is clear that the 9-watt bulb is brighter than the 13-watt bulb. I don’t have a light meter to measure the luminosity of the light, but there is a perceivable difference in intensity.

The question now is whether my new bulb will degrade in quality over time. I guess that I’ll have to wait a few years to find out. In the meantime, I’ve replaced the bulbs in my living room area with CFL’s. They work well in general areas, but not as well for reading light. I’ve stuck with my mini-halogen desk lamp for that.

computing misc, tech

The much-hyped Palm Pre, dubbed the “iPhone killer”, was released last week. Its operating system succeeds the antiquated PalmOS that had only received incremental updates over the last decade. The initial reviews have been generally promising, and Palm’s Me2 device appears to offer a viable alternative to the Iphone and HTC Android phone. While useability and eye candy are critical to Palm Pre’s future, how does the device suit the medical community?

It’s important to realize that Palm has been the de-facto standard for medical software. Windows Mobile devices also offer equivalent software packages, but not nearly in as much breadth or stability. This is the main reason why I’ve stuck with my aging Palm TX.

Skyscape and Epocrates are the two main companies that produce medical software for portable devices. As a physician, I basically only need two applications: a drug formulary and a reference manual for my specialty. For ophthalmology, the reference manual of choice is the Wills Eye Manual.

Overall, the medical software availability for the Palm Pre is disappointing. Epocrates does not have a native WebOS edition available yet; the only means to access the drug formulary is to load a legacy hack. Likewise, none of the Skyscape applications have been ported to the new interface–you have to purchase the legacy emulator.

Given that the bulk of a medical application is reference text, you only need to write a user-friendly frontend to load the data. With the Skyscape applications, only one new frontend is needed for all of its manuals. Coding an intuitive interface is no overnight project, but not having useable software by the time your killer device is released will dispel customers.

I’ve noticed that Skyscape has also implemented a graded pricing scheme for its products. It offers a subscription service which provides free upgrades and phone support for one year. Afterward, it appears that the application stops working until you renew. Alternatively, you can purchase a “standard” package for about $20 more that allows you to use the product indefinitely but without updates. A subscription service makes absolutely no sense to anyone who never calls customer support anyway. While medicine is an evolving field, any new medical breakthroughs will unlikely make it into text within a year. I continue to be skeptical about this pricing scheme.

I assume that both Epocrates and Skyscape will eventually offer a discounted upgrade for early adopters once they release a native Palm WebOS application. In the meantime, I’m going to wait until these applications mature.

computing, medicine medicine, tech