Showing posts with label computers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label computers. Show all posts

Monday, June 06, 2011

Unplugged

For reasons as yet still mysterious, my office computer, a clunky Windows POS of indeterminate age, refuses to go online today. (I tend to blame my coworkers who, when I wasn’t here on Friday, decided to move “my” PC to another location. If they’re going to do that, I wish they’d forget to bring it back. But that’s another story for another day.)


As it happens, I am converting the weekend’s DVDs to MP4s, also on another PC (one that handles the chore in a less glacial fashion than the ancient, steam-powered model in my office), and from that PC I was able to make the web updates. But the rest of it simply lies idle for the nonce.


It is astounding how much work a person can’t get done when he can’t go online! I had intended to make some website changes...nope. E-mail? Hah. I can’t even work on publications, since the files are on the network shared drive, and the drive is inaccessible on my PC. Such is the nature of my work that I literally have no other task with which to occupy myself until the tech guy shows up. And so I find myself at the “other” PC, watching Handbrake do its thing in one window and Vimeo Uploader do its thing in the other. Forced idleness is a terrible thing.


Update: Turns out I was right to blame my coworkers.

Monday, March 29, 2010

Something New Under the Sun!

Here at last is something that's never happened in my experience. Let me know if it's befallen you.

I am, as is my custom, wading through my various e-mail accounts, when a message from my wife pops up in my Yahoo account. I click on it, of course, and the message displayed is an ad from HP Home & Home Office Store. I assume that I clicked on the wrong line in the message queue, but note that there is no "previous" link even though my wife's note, being the most recent, was at the top of the list. Back to the message queue, where I observe that the HP message is actually three messages down the list from my wife's, making it pretty unlikely that I clicked on the wrong line. Try, try again...and here's the HP message again!

Weird, yes?

Back to messages, where I click on the HP message, and am rewarded with the latest Nikonians Newsletters, a message that appears four places down the list from the HP message.

So I close the tab in which I had Yahoo Mail running, create a new tab, re-enter Yahoo Mail...and presto! everything is working again.

Just when a guy thought he had seen it all...

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Two Oddities

A couple of strange things in my electronic world...not unsettling, not even annoying, just strange:

First: A couple of weeks ago ShareThis made an update to its nifty service. Since I use ShareThis as my primary sharing mechanism (to Facebook, Twitter, Digg, and Diigo primarily, and often as a quick way to e-mail links to my far-flung correspondents as well), I was excited at the prospect of the update. Which, for the most part was worthwhile. Early on I had an issue with Twitter: Basically, nothing would happen. But if I chose "More Sharing Services" from the menu, I could share to Twitter in a sideways fashion. I reported it to the Proper Authorities, and was told that a bug fix in the next day or so should address the problem, which it did. Great.

But ever since then, something peculiar happens if I share something to Facebook and am not logged in to Facebook: My browser window rolls up to about two inches in height, and won't "unroll" back to full size until I either log in or cancel. After which a simple click on the green button (Mac OS X) and I'm back to normal. Well, my browser window is, at least. If I'm logged into Facebook already and share something via ShareThis, the collapsing window doesn't occur. Weird, no? Hasn't seemed worth reporting to ShareThis, but I am curious if others have encountered anything like this. I'm using Firefox 3.6.2.

Second: I noticed toward the end of last week that I wasn't getting e-mail from The Washington Post--not my daily news update, not my Opinions e-mail, no breaking news, nothing. Went to my account and everything there is as it should be. I even clicked the "update" button, just for kicks. But nothing. (No, it's not suddenly routing to my spam folder. Why do people always ask that? Am I the only one who checks the contents of his spam folder before hitting the "empty" button?) When I'll get around to it I'll swap a different e-mail address for the one they've been sending stuff to for all these years and see if that breaks the logjam. Strange, though, when something that's always worked suddenly...doesn't.

Tuesday, January 06, 2009

Some "Help"!

Lately a very intrusive "service" from Qwest has infected my computers. I've been able to "opt out," as they say, on my iMac, but not on the Dell laptop I sometimes use. The fact that I never "opted in" to this "service" in the first place seems to be neither here nor there.

The "service" in question--Qwest Web.Help redirection service--theoretically "helps" you find a URL when your browser isn't able to. In fact, it hijacks your browser.

Veteran web-users will remember a time when you absolutely had to enter the whole big long http-colon-slash-slash-dubya-dubya-dubya-whatever-dot-com in order to get anywhere. Then came whatever version of the wonderful old Netscape Navigator browser, whose authors decided that maybe, just maybe, a browser could be smart enough to decode the Domain Name Server information without your having to take it by the hand. You type in, say, "blogger," and presto! a few seconds later you arrive at http://www.blogger.com! Amazing!

Internet Exploder, of course, continued to insist on the whole string for quite some time, which was a big part of the reason I dumped IE--or, as I still think of it, Aieeee!--many years ago. Following the demise of Netscape Navigator, Firefox continued the smart tradition, and for that and many other reasons has long been my browser of choice.

Well, thanks to Qwest Web.Help, internet browsing has taken a giant step backward!

For now, typing "Zap2It" (my favorite TV listings service) into the URL field gives me this:


Charming, no? The worst part is, Qwest Web.Help can't find anything unless you type in the whole URL, or at least the name-dot-com part of it. Just like web surfing in the 1980s!

Or, perhaps more accurately, Qwest Web.Help won't find anything. And why? Well, look at the screenshot. All of those "helpful" results--only the third on the list being the actual website I want, incidentally--aren't there by accident. They're all "sponsored" links. "Sponsored" as in "paid advertising."

In short: Qwest's "help" involves their hijacking my web browser so they can make money on top of the fee I pay them every month for my DSL.

Gee, thanks, Qwest.

You will note, in small letters way off to the right-hand side of the screen, a link titled "Opt out of this service."

"Service." Right. He said with a sneer.

Well, not very easy. For one thing, to click the link does not, as you might expect, actually opt you out. Rather, it takes you to the following, eerily familiar page:




Yes, it's virtually the same page--got to keep those paid listings in front of your little eyeballs, you know--except that now you have a box telling you what the "service" that you never wanted does (it slows down your browsing experience so that you have to look at some ads along the way, that's what it does!), and then gives you
another link to click on to, theoretically, "opt out."

But not so fast, buckaroo! First you have to look at this:



That's right, you're still not to the opt-out, um, option! Once again, they're telling you you can opt out "at any time"--instructions that must have been written by someone who never visited the Qwest Web.Help website. This is beginning to be a bit like Hotel California, no?

Okay, buried in the number-four position on the list is "Can I opt out of this service?" The answer would seem to be a resounding no, but I gamely click on it anyhow...and get yet another link for, supposedly, opting out!


This is truly and blatantly designed to prevent people from opting out of this idiotic imposition, and whoever at Qwest thought of this idea should have a special little corner of hell reserved for them.

Actually, I think there ought to be a law against this sort of thing, and I am seriously contemplating making such a suggestion to my congressional delegation (one of whom won't give a hoot, since he has over and over demonstrated himself to be in the hip pocket of "Business Interests," but the other two might at least give it some consideration).

Okay, having come this far one might as well play it out. I click on " opt out of this service" (again)...and...




Yep. No opting out going on quite yet! Instead here's yet another description of the "service" and yet another "opt out" link. What are we up to by now? I can't count that high!

Well, surely by now the "opt out" link must do something, no? So I click on it...and here comes this little gem:


Yes. We have at last reached the end of the trail, despite Qwest's best efforts. And what is our reward? Why, Qwest can't find the domain! Now, let's think for a moment. What is the domain that Qwest can't find? Well, the message says "Unable to determine IP address from host name for www.qwest.net."

Um...Qwest can't find its own address??

That's certainly how it appears. "Qwest DNS servers were not able to resolve the hostname presented in the URL," it says. "Check if the address is correct," it says.

The "hostname presented in the URL"? http://www.qwest.net/web.help/?confirm=1.

Qwest can't find its own address.

And they're the people who are going to "help" me with this wonderful "service" that I never asked for and which they won't let me opt out of.

Some "help"!

Saturday, March 29, 2008

Made With Macintosh

On March 12, I acquired my latest Macintosh, the new iMac, with a ginormous screen that I feel I am sitting too close to. Quite a far cry from my first Mac, which was the first Mac, the original, adjectiveless, numeralless plain ol' Macintosh computer, which looked like this:


It is hard to imagine now how thrilling that little Mac, with its monochrome nine-inch screen and its Imagewriter tractor-feed dot printer was back in 1984. To put it in context: I was working for a magazine-publishing company that had recently installed a very expensive computerized editing system, giving us all big green-screen terminals on which to compose or edit manuscripts. We had to insert various codes in order to use the correct typefaces, point sizes, column widths, etc., for our publications. Likewise, we needed codes before and after words we wanted italicized, boldfaced, SMALL-CAPPED, etc....and if we forgot the end code, well, then, everything was bold/italic/small caps up until the next time we inserted a code. If we put something in bold, the plain green lettering on the terminal monitor showed up somewhat brighter, giving us some kind of visual clue, at least; but there were no such clues for italic, small caps, etc.--or for the wrong typeface. Characters appeared onscreen sans descenders, so a g looked a lot like an s, and a lowercase p looked a lot like an uppercase P, since they both sat on the baseline. Not idea...but a heckuva lot better than the typewriters and paper we had used up till then!

Personal computers, such as they were, were much the same--green on dark-green, or amber on dark-amber, or white on black...no such thing as a Graphical User Interface--with all sorts of command codes and break codes and who knows what else. And the dot printers of the day were nothing to dream about, certainly not for someone interested in producing professional-quality manuscripts.

And then came the Macintosh. If you wanted something underlined, you underlined it. Bold? You made it bold. Change the font? Hey, shows up right here on the screen...in black, on a pleasantly bluish background. And when it came time to print, the serviceable Imagewriter (my recollection is that the W became uppercase with the later introduction of the ImageWriter II) printed pretty much what you saw on the screen!

Sold!

Coincidentally, at about the time the Mac came on the market I had just sold my first novel, The Nebraska Quotient, upon the conclusion of which I vowed I would never write another book on a typewriter. There was a small Apple Computer store just around the corner from my wife's workplace in St. Paul, Minnesota, and so I left to pick her up a bit early one day in order to look at the Mac in person. They were so new, and so much in demand, that the man had only a single demo model in the shop. No matter, my mind was made up. The proprietor tried to convince me that the Mac was a fad and that for "real" computing I needed one of the Apple II computers that would soon be gathering dust on his shelves (did he really believe the Apple II to be a superior machine? Or was he trying to unload them before the Mac overtook them? We'll never know...but even then I had my suspicions!), but I was unconvinced. WYSIWYG was a term that had not yet reached my ears, but I know it when I saw it, and I saw it, and I wanted it.

It so happened that a friend of mine was still in college and thus able to score the coveted Mac package with a student discount, and so I placed the order via his good offices, and waited. Indeed, I had begun my second book on a typewriter when finally the Mac arrived one October afternoon in 1984. I taught myself to use the enclosed MacWrite software by retyping the two or three chapters of Moving Targets that I had already pounded out on the Smith-Corona. The Mac boasted 128 kilobytes of RAM, no hard drive--to my knowledge, they didn't yet exist--and a built-in microfloppy drive that read and wrote 400 kilobyte disks. MacWrite had a memory-use issue that slowed everything to a crawl after about 14 pages, but that was okay: I soon learned to break chapters up into smaller chunks, stretching them out across a couple of floppy disks. To avoid the risk of damaging the printer heads on the Imagewriter, Apple recommended letting it cool down after an hour or so of use, which meant--dot printers not being noted for speediness--that it took two solid days to print a book-length manuscript. This involved a certain amount of "babysitting the printer," since you never knew when the tractor-feed paper was going to go off-track, and it was pretty frustrating to wander into the office to see how things were progressing only to discover that the Imagewriter had been overprinting the same line for the past half-hour. Since you could do nothing else on the Mac while printing was in process, I quickly learned to drag the rocking chair into the office and kill time with a book whilst "babysitting."

By today's standards, primitive. By the standards of the day, The Jetsons!

A year or two later, Apple introduced the Macintosh Plus, the so-called Fat Mac, pretty much the same machine but with with 512K of RAM and a double-sided floppy-disk drive. I bought a kit from a mail-order house (this was pre-online retailing, mind), cracked open the Mac's clamshell drive (which required special tools, for the Mac was not designed to ever be opened by the user), popped in the green board with extra RAM, popped out the old floppy drive, slid in the new one, put everything back together...and held my breath when I plugged it back into the wall and booted it up.

Not much later I would add a LaCie hard drive and a LaserWriter II, and worked happily with that configuration on into the early 1990s--I'm thinking 1991, but maybe 1992--when I invested in a Mac IIsi:
One of my everlasting regrets is that, when I bought the IIsi, I traded off the original Mac in return for some extra RAM. I wish I had saved it and turned it into an aquarium or something. Alas.

The IIsi was a nice machine, certainly faster than the Mac, and with the added bonus of color, but it was hardly a standout computer. Indeed, I don't remember that much about it. So I assume it was neither especially fabulous nor especially terrible. I worked with the IIsi until about 1996, when I invested in one of the Mac clones, from the time of that short, ill-starred experiment that Apple Computer undertook. Mine was a PowerComputing PowerCenter Pro IINT, which looked like this one:


The PowerCenter Pro was a lovely computer, and I eventually replaced it only because I had bumped my head against the upgrade ceiling...Mac OS 9 was as good as the PowerCenter got. But it was a fun, speedy, and trouble-free computer for a lot of years, and I was sorry when Apple discontinued its clone program, for that seemed to be the end of PowerComputing. I still have the PowerCenter Pro, on a card table in a corner of my office. As far as I know it still works...tough to judge, though, since the last time I powered it up the monitor refused to cooperate. Might have to fuss with it some one of these days.

The next Mac was a used Blue and White G3, code-named Yosemite, which I bought via eBay perhaps five years ago.


It too was a useful and enjoyable--and pretty!--computer, right up until January of this year when it started running...dreadfully...slow. My attempts to fix it were unsuccessful, and I sometimes wonder if I made it worse. (Hard to see how; I suspect that it was simply failing--perhaps a hard-drive issue--and would have conked out no matter what I did/didn't do.) One fine day last month the silly thing quit booting at all--I'd get the start-up "spinning gear" for, literally, hours on end, and then--perhaps--my desktop pattern, followed by hours of the spinning beachball, followed--perhaps!--by a log-in screen, followed by more beach ball. That is, up until the time it started to refuse my log in. Which is about when I decided it was time to go shopping again.

Odd thing about the G3 purchase: It came as a package, CPU, monitor, keyboard...and no mouse. Why no mouse? I mean, no big deal--I went to Best Buy and bought a USB mouse--but I wish I had asked the seller what the story was with the mouse. Did it fail and he just decided not to replace it when he sold the G3? Or did he have a mouse that he really, really liked and didn't want to sell? Whatever, I guess.

Earlier this month I went online to the Apple Store and ordered up the latest iMac:

This a simply a grand computer, fast, quiet (hell: silent), simple, and a pleasure to work with. I could have stepped down to the next smallest monitor, but what the heck. I do have to reorganize my office to accommodate it--I currently have to peer around the edge of my desk lamp in order to see the extreme left side of the screen--but it seems worth it. Of course, my old scanner, my old LaserWriter II (still works, though hasn't been used in a year or more), my old Zip Drive, my old CD burner (which I don't need, thanks to the iMac's built-in CD/DVD burner), and that old, old LaCie hard drive are now completely obsolete. No idea what to do with them, so I suppose they'll head up to the attic to be dealt with "another day." That's progress, I guess.

Upon learning of my recent purchase, a family member commented, "So you decided to get another Macintosh, huh?"

What a question!





Wednesday, June 13, 2007

Dumb, or Just Annoying?

Some years ago, when I was experiencing technical difficulties with my then-provider of e-mail, I opened up a Hotmail account. Today it's primarily a spam-magnet, but I keep it alive with a couple-three newsletter subscriptions and generally check it every week or ten days.

There are many reasons that Hotmail is the least favorite of my freebie e-mail accounts (it's slow, it's clunky, it fills up with Microsoft junk mail, etc.), but at the top of this list is this: It has a stupid sign-in procedure.

Yeah, yeah, I can have my Mac, or Firefox, or Hotmail itself remember some of the sign-in stuff, at least for awhile. But I prefer not to do that. Which means that whenever I sign into Hotmail I have to let them know I'm signing into Hotmail!

Here's what I mean: When I sign in to my Yahoo! Mail account, I type my username in one box and my password in the other. When I sign into my Gmail account, I type my username in one box and my password in the other. Heck, when I check my ancient Netscape Mail account, I type my username in one box and my password in the other even though it's now AIM Mail or something else these days.

Get the pic? Then riddle me this:

How's come when I sign into Hotmail, I have to add @hotmail.com to my username?

I mean, at the top of the page it says MSN Hotmail. Below that it says MSN® Hotmail® is changing... to Windows Live™ Hotmail®. (I'm thinking some of those proper nouns might be trademarked or registered with the U.S. Patent Office. But it's just a guess.) At the side of the page it says WindowsLive Hotmail. Above the sign-in fields it says Sign in to Hotmail.

In short, it seems to know that it's Hotmail.

But if I foolishly type my username instead of the whole address, it says Please type your e-mail address in the following format: yourname@example.com. Need help signing in?

Um, no, I don't need any help...but it seems the folks at MSN/Windows/Live/Hotmail do, for yourname@example.com implies that they have suddenly and inexplicably forgotten who they are.

This surpasses what I had some years ago considered to be The Dumbest Thing in E-mail, when AOL swallowed up Netscape. One fine day I received notice that I would have to change my username, which I had had for years and years, because it "conflicted" with a username at AOL. That piqued my interest, since my Netscape username was the same as my old and long abandoned AOL username. So I sent e-mail to that AOL address...and it came back with a no-such-user notification.

So that was dumb. But the Hotmail deal is dumber.

And while I'm at it, here's some similar but unrelated cyber-dumbness:

I have long since lost track of the number of times, in filling out this or that form, survey, etc., I am asked to input my date of birth. Fine, but ever since the turn of the century, the request--nay, demand--is always that it be in the form "mm/dd/yyyy." Now, stop me if I've said this before, but the yyyy part is silly. See, there is no one alive today who was born in 1856, nor is there anyone alive today who was born in 2056, so if I were to fill in, say, "56," would it not be pretty safe to assume I mean the 20th century version? I realize that now we do have among us people who were born in the 2000s...but, in the first place, I'm not sure too many five-year-olds are entering the Publisher's Clearinghouse Sweepstakes online; and in the second place, I'm not sure too many 95- or 100-year-olds are either, so I think it would be safe to assume that someone who filled in "02" as date of birth was not born in 1902 and probably not born in 2102 either.

I'm sure there's a perfectly swell computer-y explanation for having to indicate which century I was born in. That doesn't make it less silly, however.