&t Technology Bytes: Q & A Archives

Main

Q & A Archives

August 15, 2008

Q: Should I buy a laptop or desktop?

Tech Q & A
- Submitted by many

A: I often get this question from people contemplating their next computer purchase. The fact of the matter is that you will almost always get more for your money performance-wise from a desktop. You will pay a premium for the mobility of a laptop. However, the answer to whether you should buy a laptop simply comes down to answering one question: do you need the mobility of a laptop?

While you will pay a premium for a laptop, the reality is that the difference in performance between a laptop and a desktop may be not appreciable for average use. Obviously, power-users who need the most performance out of a computer should opt for a desktop. But for the average user, most laptops of today will provide plenty of power. So if a user needs to use a computer away from their desk, then the obvious choice is a laptop.

It used to be that laptop users needed laptops because they needed a computer when away from their office or home. However, wireless technology has freed people from being tied to their desk and users are taking advantage by having their computers more accessible. It's no surprise that laptop sales are growing much faster than desktop sales. Many laptops are being sold because users want to use them anywhere in their home or office, not just when on the road.

One reason NOT to get a laptop is if a user has limited desk space. I often have users tell me they want a laptop because they don't want a big computer on their desk. If this is the ONLY reason a user wants a laptop (and not for mobility), then they should consider an all-in-one machine such as an iMac. The flat-panel design of today's iMac do not take a lot of desk space, and as mentioned above, you will get more for your money.

Another common situation I run into is where a user thinks they need both a laptop and desktop. They want the larger screen along with external keyboard and mouse when at a desk. I strongly recommend AGAINST doing this. The primary reason is that keeping data synchronized between two computers quickly becomes a big hassle. Unless a user has strong computer skills, switching between computers and keeping data consistent between them can be overwhelming. The second reason not to do this is that it is usually cheaper to buy a laptop and docking setup with external monitor, keyboard, and mouse. This way, a user can use their laptop on the road and still feel like they are using a desktop at their desk, keeping their data safely on one computer.

As usual, please submit any technology questions you may have and your question may be featured in this newsletter!

Posted by Marcel Brown on August 15, 2008 6:55 AM | | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

July 16, 2008

Q: Why should I spend any money fixing my old computer when I can buy a new one for $500?

Tech Q & A
- Submitted by many

A: It is true that you can buy a computer for around $500 or even less. This certainly seems like a good deal. For that price, it would seem that spending any money on repairs or maintenance of an old computer would be wasteful. And it is true that in some cases it does not make sense to spend money on an old computer. But there are several things that people do not consider that can make a strong case for keeping up an old computer.

Not all computers are created equal. Most of the time, very low-cost computers are underpowered, lack adequate RAM, or are built from low quality parts. An underpowered computer can provide a very frustrating user experience. This is especially true when considering Windows Vista. Additionally, those who have kids that play 3D games must be careful not to purchase a computer with a less powerful video card that what is already in their computer. The video card is often more important to the performance of 3D games than the processor. The bottom line is that just because a computer is new, does not necessarily mean that it will be a lot faster that the computer you have now.

Many people forget that the initial purchase price of a computer is only part of its total cost of ownership. The less expensive the computer, the higher the probability of hardware problems. Also, the more likely that it will require upgrades sooner. And one must consider what kind of monitor, if any, comes with a low-cost PC. Old monitors need replacing as well. So the seemingly low cost of a computer may be a lot more than at first glance.

Finally, many people do not consider the time and potential expense of transferring their data, software, and existing peripherals to a new computer. It can be technically challenging for average users to successfully transfer their data and software to a new computer. And again, when considering Windows Vista, older peripherals may not work very well. So many users who purchase new computers must pay a computer technician to setup the new computer, transfer their data and software, and setup their peripherals.

So to sum up, low-cost computers generally end up costing a lot more than their sticker price when considering total cost of ownership and additional services required. As well, poorly made computers can become frustrating experiences for owners. Given these considerations, it can often make sense to fix up an existing computer to get a few more years of useful service out of them.

As usual, please submit any technology questions you may have and your question may be featured in this newsletter!

Posted by Marcel Brown on July 16, 2008 12:34 PM | | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

June 15, 2008

Q: When should I replace the battery in my battery backup unit?

Tech Q & A
- Submitted by Darell Newman, Personal Preference Landscape Care

A: The batteries in most battery backup units last between 3 - 5 years. In fact, some companies have their battery backup software warn users that the battery in their unit is over 3 years old. Given this information, obviously most people would think they need to replace their battery in about 3 to 4 years. However, my recommendation in most cases is actually for users not to replace the battery in battery backup units. Let me explain why.

The first reason is cost. Simply speaking, the cost of replacing a battery in a battery backup unit is almost always nearly the same price as just buying a new unit. Even if you are spending a little more for a brand new unit, the pace of technology improvements in the course of 3 - 5 years means that you will be getting a better overall unit by buying a new one.

Second, the purpose of a battery backup or surge protector is to absorb power problems so your computer doesn't. Over time, these devices can be damaged or wear out. It would be a shame to spend money on a new battery only to have the unit fail soon after.

Finally, some batteries can be difficult to find replacements for and difficult to physically replace. Any savings in getting a new battery will probably be lost in the time involved finding a matching battery and then actually installing it.

So basically, the answer to when to replace your battery is never! Generally, no harm comes if the battery stops working (but be sure to replace it right away), so you can wait until the battery backup indicates that it is time to replace your battery and simply buy a new one. If you want to be proactive, wait about 4 years to purchase a new unit.

As usual, please submit any technology questions you may have and your question may be featured in this newsletter!

Posted by Marcel Brown on June 15, 2008 9:49 PM | | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

May 16, 2008

Q: I hear that Microsoft is going to "kill" Windows XP this summer. My computer has Windows XP. Is this something I should be concerned about?

Tech Q & A
- Submitted by many

A: It's funny how many variations of this question exist. Yes, Microsoft says they will stop shipping Windows XP after June 30th. Some people think that this means that Microsoft will no longer provide support for XP. Others think they will be forced to upgrade to Vista this summer or their computer will stop working. But most people have only heard little bits of this story and basically have no idea what to think. So let me set the story straight for you.

Microsoft says they will stop shipping Windows XP after June 30th. They could still change their mind, as there are many grassroots efforts trying to convince Microsoft otherwise. But let's assume Microsoft will stick to their guns. What this means is that Microsoft will not ship XP to the distribution channel (wholesalers) or directly to customers. However, any copies of XP that are in stock in distribution or retail will still be available for purchase as long as that stock is available. Many distributors and retailers are planning on stockpiling copies of XP, so it could be very likely that Windows XP will be available for sale long after June 30th. And there are some loopholes for "system builders", small companies who build computers for resale where they can continue to buy Windows XP through the end of the year. There are also other loopholes that apply mostly to businesses which I won't go into here.

So June 30th may be the beginning of the end of Windows XP, but certainly nothing dramatic will happen on that date. Your computer with Windows XP WILL continue to work. You will NOT be forced to upgrade to Vista. Microsoft will simply stop shipping new Windows XP copies. Buying a new PC with Windows XP may become a little more challenging after June 30th, but it will still be possible.

Also, just because Microsoft will stop shipping Windows XP does not mean they are ending support for XP. Microsoft will continue to provide "mainstream" support for XP until April 2009. Then they will continue to provide "extended" support through April 2014. However, most people don't get support directly from Microsoft anyway, so this is largely irrelevant. What is important is whether or not Microsoft will continue to release bug fixes and security patches. Microsoft's plan is to continue to provide security updates through April of 2014. As far as "bug fixes", that is left up to Microsoft's discretion whether they will release fixes to the public after April of 2009. But some experts believe that because Service Pack 3 for Windows XP was just released very recently, that Microsoft may extend the timeframe in which they will continue to release bug fixes for XP with SP 3.

So bottom line is don't worry ... be happy! June 30th will pass us by and you and your computer will be no worse for the wear. As usual, please submit any technology questions you may have to me and your question may be featured in this newsletter!

Posted by Marcel Brown on May 16, 2008 12:00 PM | | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

April 10, 2008

Q: Should I set up a wired or wireless network for my small or home office?

Tech Q & A
- Submitted by Dr. Clinton Frye, Frye Chiropractic & Laser Center

A: In any particular real-world situation, many factors will weigh into this decision. But for sake of simplicity, let's assume that you could feasibly do either a wired or wireless network. When set up properly, either a wired or wireless network should perform well for the majority of things that most people do on a network, especially when using the Internet. So really there's no reason you couldn't do both. However, if you are using a particular software to run your business, you should check with the developer of that application to see if they support the use of a wireless network.

Many programs, especially those that had their roots before wireless networks, depend on a very reliable network to work well. While wireless technology can be very reliable, wireless networks can suffer from interference. This interference can cause varying interruptions in network service. Most of the time, a user may never notice. However, particularly sensitive applications may not work well even with very minor interruptions. Again, you must consult your software's developer to verify their recommendations. Ideally, you should do this before you purchase the software.

In some situations, wireless networking is a critical necessity. If this is your situation, you should seek out software that was designed to work over less reliable connections. The good news is that more and more developers are realizing that they need to design their software to work over "unreliable" networks such as the Internet. As they design their software to do this, the ability to use wireless networks for business software improves. As well, wireless technology continues to evolve. Newer devices are much better at managing interference and preventing network interruptions.

With all that being said, however, if it is feasible to wire your business, I suggest you do so, especially if you are starting a new business or moving to a new space. It is much easier to pre-wire a building during build-out or construction than to wait until you've moved in. By having your business wired, you have the flexibility to implement a wired network if desired. As the speed of wired networks improve, your business may one day need to take advantage of faster networking speeds. One tip: make sure you wire using "Category 6" cabling. This newer type of cabling (as compared to Category 5 or 5e) supports Gigabit Ethernet, which is up to 10 times as fast as the most common type of network today. Already, many new computers come with Gigabit networking built-in, so Gigabit networks may become more common sooner than later.

Have your tech question answered right here! Submit your question right away before someone else does!

Posted by Marcel Brown on April 10, 2008 11:27 AM | | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

March 4, 2008

Q: My Windows computer is having problems. Should I do a "System Restore"?

Tech Q & A
- Submitted by many

A: "System Restore" is a feature of Microsoft Windows XP and Vista which allows users to revert a core set of specified system and application files to a previous state. In some cases, a System Restore can allow a malfunctioning Windows computer to return to proper operation. However, it seems like many people think System Restore is a nearly-magical method of fixing any Windows problem. The reality is that System Restore is only capable of fixing certain types of problems. In fact, System Restore could cause problems if improperly used. Think of System Restore as a "shotgun" approach to system troubleshooting. It is possible to throw the baby out with the bath water using System Restore.

For example, a System Restore can partially uninstall recently installed software programs, rendering them inoperable but difficult to completely uninstall or reinstall. It is also possible to "restore" viruses or spyware that had been previously removed. Also, Some people think System Restore will restore data files that may have become corrupted. System restore is not designed to backup user data files, so if the problem is with a user's data, System Restore won't help. And in certain cases, System Restore can actually cause users to lose files from their desktops.

Having the knowledge I have, I much prefer a "surgical" approach to computer problem resolution. This way I am more comfortable in the solution I provide, knowing exactly what I did and minimizing the chance of "collateral damage" - i.e. causing other problems in the course of fixing one. However, I realize that most people don't have the technical knowledge I have and in certain cases a System Restore could be a useful tool in an urgent situation. Obviously, I recommend that users seek qualified technical help whenever feasible. But if for some reason using a technical professional is not possible, then the question becomes when could a System Restore be used?

First, I recommend that a user has a solid backup system in place, unless the problematic computer stores no important data. With this being said, if the problems just recently started and the user can establish a fairly certain sequence of events that appeared to trigger the problem, then a System Restore has a higher probability of success with a minimized chance of collateral damage. The user should try the most recent restore point prior to the beginning of the problems. If the restore operation does not work, the user can undo the restore operation by running the System Restore utility and choosing "Undo My Last Restoration". The user can then try another System Restore point a little further back in time, if desired.

But let me reiterate, System Restore is not a "precision" troubleshooting tool. If you really want to ensure that your computer is in proper operation, I do recommend the services of a qualified technical professional. Certainly feel free to contact me if your computer is having trouble and I'll do my best to help you out.

Posted by Marcel Brown on March 4, 2008 12:01 PM | | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

February 9, 2008

Q: What should I know about Vonage, Skype, or other Internet telephone services?

Tech Q & A
- Submitted by Amy Herman

A: Internet telephone services such as these use a technology commonly called "Voice over Internet Protocol", or VoIP. Basically, they convert voice into digital data that is carried over the Internet then converted back into voice. VoIP can be implemented in many different ways, such as using VoIP inside a company's private phone system. However, for purposes of this question, we'll talk about using VoIP technology as a replacement for "regular" phone service, otherwise known as "plain old telephone service" or POTS for short.

Vonage and similar companies are VoIP services that position themselves as POTS replacements. These services use your existing broadband Internet service. Often, the companies provide equipment that connects to your home or office network, as well as to your existing POTS equipment. So basically once the service is set up, you will continue to use your old phones just as you did before. Instead of your voice traveling over the local phone company's system, your voice is converted to Internet traffic and rides over your Internet provider's network. Generally, these companies position their services as being cheaper than service from a regular phone company.

Skype and similar software provide VoIP services by utilizing your computer to make the voice to digital conversion. Often, the user you would be calling will have the same software on their computer. Usually, the companies that provide the software will not charge you if the person on the other end also uses the same software. They will only charge you if you are calling someone with a regular phone.

Finally, many Internet providers are offering phone services, which while they may not advertise them as such, are based on VoIP technologies. Basically, these services are very similar to Vonage-type services, but they are simply bundled with the Internet providers data service.

As far as the voice quality of these services, reports are many and varied. Some people have had very good experiences with these services. Others have not. Generally, the biggest factor in the quality of these services is the reliability of the underlying Internet service.

The only way to know if a particular service will work in your particular situation is to test it out. My advice is to test the particular service you are interested in before completely committing yourself to that service. Most services will provide at least a one month free trial. If you really feel a VoIP service will be beneficial to you and you'd like to ensure that your network is optimized to support VoIP, please let me know. I'd be happy to help you out.

Posted by Marcel Brown on February 9, 2008 3:44 PM | | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

January 12, 2008

Q: What's better/faster: cable Internet or DSL?

Tech Q & A
- Submitted by many

A: This is one of the most common questions I get. The answer is not so simple. When asking if a certain service is "better", some people are asking if one is faster than the other. Others are asking about reliability. Others want to know about price. All three questions may have different answers depending on the person asking it.

To start, understand that cable Internet and DSL Internet are virtually the same service. They both provide "always-on", high-speed Internet service to your home or business. In fact, the technologies are so similar, that much of the equipment that cable and DSL providers use behind the scenes is the same. The main difference is that one service is delivered by the cable company lines, the other delivered by the phone company lines. To the user, once the service gets to their computer, it is basically the same - fast Internet.

Which type of service is more reliable? This really depends on your neighborhood. I know clients that rarely have any problems with their cable Internet or DSL service. I know other clients that cancelled their service with either cable or DSL because they had too many problems. In other instances, as the respective companies upgraded their infrastructures in various areas, service quality has improved. The only way to really know if a certain service is reliable in your area is to ask your neighbors. What service do they have, how long have they had it, and how often do they have problems?

So which service is faster? This depends when and where you ask it. As of the writing of the article, in my area Charter Communications offers cable Internet service up to 10 Mbps. AT&T offers DSL up to 6 Mbps. So at this time, the fastest Internet service available in my area is cable. However, that hasn't always been the case and it may not be the case in all areas. In the future, it is likely that DSL providers will introduce faster services, probably leapfrogging cable at some point. Then cable providers will probably offer faster service again and so on.

The more important question is not who has the fastest Internet, but who has the best value for your money. Does it really matter if cable provides 10 Mbps service if you are only interested in about 1 Mbps service? Also, what conditions are attached to any advertised rates? Often, advertised rates are only 3 or 6 month promotions. Other times, to qualify for advertised rates, customers must also subscribe to other services. Another consideration is independent DSL providers. There are many companies that offer DSL service independent of the local phone company. Their rates may be better and/or they may offer better customer service. The bottom line is to thoroughly check all the details of any rate plans to make sure that you are actually getting the speed you want at the rate you want. Also, since companies change their rate plans all the time, periodically check to see if you qualify for faster or cheaper service. Companies generally don't change your plan unless you ask them to - even if they are offering cheaper or faster services.

After all this being said, keep in mind what I first stated: both services are virtually the same once they get to your computer. As long as you are getting reliable service at price and speed that is satisfactory to you, then it really doesn't matter much whether the service is coming over a cable line or phone line.

E-mail me your technology questions and have them answered in a future issue!

Posted by Marcel Brown on January 12, 2008 11:44 AM | | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

December 9, 2007

Q: What is this Leopard I keep hearing about and what is so great about it?

Tech Q & A
- Submitted by many

A: Leopard is the marketing name for the recently released Macintosh Operating System 10.5 (otherwise known as Mac OS 10.5 or Mac OS X 10.5). It replaces Mac OS X 10.4, commonly known as Tiger, which had been the current Mac OS for about two-and-a-half years. Apple claims that Leopard has over 300 new features. You can see the full list, which is well worth a read, by clicking here. While many of the features counted in this number are minor, there are a few major features that are important to note. But before we get started, you may be wondering why Apple names the Mac OS X versions after big cats?

To keep a long story short, almost all companies give code names to new products in development. Apple started giving big cat code names to each major revision of the Mac OS, starting with Mac OS X 10.0. Usually, these code names are only used internally within a company, as was the case with Mac OS X 10.0 (Cheetah) and Mac OS X 10.1 (Puma). However, with Mac OS X 10.2, Apple's marketing team started publicly using the code name, Jaguar, and the name stuck. After that, Apple just kept using the cat names to promote each new version. Mac OS X 10.3 was Panther, 10.4 Tiger, and 10.5 Leopard. FYI, Apple has already registered Lynx and Cougar as trademarks.

So getting back on track, what features of Leopard set it apart from the previous Mac OS as well as Windows? One very nice feature is Quick Look. This allows a user to quickly view a document without needing to open the program first. Quick Look works even if a user does not have the software to open the file. Obviously, this can be very handy. While the user won't be able to print the file, at least they will be able to view it. This can also be a time saving feature, especially for users with older Macs. Currently, Quick Look can allow users to look at the contents of these common file formats: PDF, Microsoft Word, Excel, PowerPoint, OpenDocument (OpenOffice), most graphic formats, most video formats, as well as many other formats. Additionally, Quick Look can be expanded by 3rd party plug-ins so even more file formats will be Quick Look compatible.

The other noteworthy feature is what Apple calls Time Machine. Time Machine is easy-to-use automatic backup software that comes as part of Leopard (and hence part of all new Macs). Literally, all you need to do is connect an external hard drive to your Mac, answer yes when Time Machine asks if you want to use that drive as a backup, and Time Machine takes care of the rest. Backups are performed automatically in the background. You don't need to set a schedule or tell Time Machine to manually start a backup. If the external hard drive is removed from the computer, Time Machine automatically resumes the backup when it is reconnected. This makes Time Machine work very well with laptops. Including such easy-to-use backup software with Leopard means that Mac users as a whole will have their data better protected.

To wrap up, while many of the 300 new features are minor, as a whole they really do improve the Mac OS, making it generally easier and more intuitive. Again, take a look at the new features, as some may be of interest to you.

For all things Apple, Marcel is your expert.

Posted by Marcel Brown on December 9, 2007 8:26 PM | | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

November 15, 2007

Q: What anti-virus software should I use?

Tech Q & A
- Submitted by many

A: My philosophy on anti-virus software is that it should be as unintrusive as possible to the user and have as little impact as possible on the performance of the computer. Many anti-virus softwares annoy their users with frequent warnings and bog down the computers they run on because they require excessive amounts of RAM and other system resources.

Given this criteria, I recommend Trend Micro Internet Security. I have found that this software is the least intrusive software of the 3 major anti-virus softwares (Norton and McAfee being the other two). Year after year, Trend Micro Internet Security also seems to require fewer system resources than the other softwares, resulting in much less impact on system performance. If you have a business with 5 or more computers, I also recommend Trend Micro's Client/Server Security Suite, which is their software for businesses.

One other very nice feature of this software is that they make it very easy to stay current. While other softwares make pricing distinctions between "upgrading" and "re-subscribing", Trend Micro only charges for yearly subscriptions. As long as a user is current, they can upgrade to the latest Trend Micro version at any time.

While the 2007 version of Trend Micro Internet Security required quite a bit more RAM than I would have liked, the recently released 2008 version returns to form with a much slimmer RAM footprint. Combined with the other improvements to the 2008 version, I am highly recommending that all my clients upgrade to this version.

E-mail me your technology questions and have them answered in a future issue!

Posted by Marcel Brown on November 15, 2007 1:18 PM | | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

October 18, 2007

Q: What can I do with my old computers and parts? Should I just throw them away?

Tech Q & A
- Submitted by Karen O'Koniewski

A: Old computers and peripherals contain a lot of substances and materials that can be bad for the environment. Depending on your locale, it may be illegal to throw old technology in your normal trash. So ideally, I would recommend that you recycle your old technology. However, finding a company to recycle old technology can be difficult. Fortunately, a familiar business name is now making technology recycling very easy.

Office Depot has recently begun a technology recycling service. For a small fee, you can purchase a box from your local Office Depot store. You can fill this box with almost any type of old technology parts, such as computers, monitors, keyboards, printers, etc. There are a few exceptions of what you can recycle for safety reasons, most notably cracked monitors. Then you bring the box back to Office Depot and they ship it off for you. Your only cost is the original purchase of the box. A small box costs $5, a medium box $10, and a large box $15. Be sure to stop by your local Office Depot for more details.

If you have need to recycle a large amount of older computer equipment, don't hesitate to contact me. I know of other companies that cater to larger recycling projects as well.

Posted by Marcel Brown on October 18, 2007 11:09 AM | | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

September 16, 2007

Q: What is the difference between a PDA, smartphone, BlackBerry, and an iPhone?

Tech Q & A
- Submitted by Andy Bridgeman of The Bridgeman Agency

A: Sometimes, there is no real difference! Other times, the features can make all the difference! It just depends on a person's point of view and what features they are looking for.

A PDA (Personal Digital Assistant) basically performs 2 main functions - organizing your contacts and calendar. They can also keep notes and do other functions, and can be expanded with third party software. The two most popular types of PDAs run the Palm OS and Windows Mobile OS. Some PDAs also have wireless networking available, so they can do things like browse the web or check e-mail.

A smartphone is basically a PDA combined with a cellular phone. Obviously, a smartphone can do all the functions of a PDA and a cell phone. Additionally, the combination of the two types of devices offers some advantages, such as being able to look up a contact and dial them directly, without needing to manually punch in their phone number. Another advantage is being able to use the cellular provider's wireless data network to use the Internet from anywhere they have coverage. Popular types of smartphones include the Treo and various Windows Mobile-based devices.

A Blackberry is a specific brand of smartphone that gained popularity in the late 90's early 2000's. What set the BlackBerry apart at the time (and is still somewhat true today) was its ability to do real-time remote e-mail. Users could have their e-mail delivered to their handheld device and send immediate replies. While today the BlackBerry brand devices are much more full-featured PDAs, when they first came out, they were primarily only e-mail devices with only rudimentary PDA functions and no phone functions at all. In fact, they looked like large pagers, nothing at all like a phone or PDA of today. Over time, the BlackBerry brand expanded to include cellular phone functions and are now pretty similar to Palm OS and Windows Mobile smartphones.

The iPhone is a new breed of smartphone. The main differences between the iPhone and other smart phones are the "desktop-like" Internet functions, as well as the touchscreen interface. For more info about the iPhone, you can read my previous articles about the iPhone (part I, part II).

The 2 questions most people have are, "should I get a PDA or smartphone", followed by, "which one should I get?" In my opinion, if you spend a lot of time with both a cell phone and PDA, then a smartphone is probably a good idea. I personally think the Palm OS is simpler and easier to use than the Windows Mobile OS, so keep that in consideration when choosing between the two types of devices. As far as choosing a BlackBerry, their big advantage is the ability to do real-time e-mail. However, the real-time e-mail feature doesn't necessarily work with all e-mail systems. You will need to check with your cellular provider and your e-mail system administrator (or ISP) to verify if the BlackBerry will be able to provide you with real-time e-mail. Other smartphones now have the ability to do real-time e-mail as well now, the same caveats apply as the BlackBerry. The smart thing to do is to try to test the different types of devices yourself before making a purchase to see if any of them are a better fit for you.

E-mail me your technology questions and have them answered in a future issue!

Posted by Marcel Brown on September 16, 2007 7:36 PM | | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (1)

August 15, 2007

Q: Can I run Windows software on a Mac?

- submitted by many readers

A: The answer is always yes. What differs is the way you can do this, depending on what kind of Macintosh you have and how you want to run Windows. The first order of business is to identify what kind of processor your Macintosh has.

The older Macintosh processor technology still in common use today is the PowerPC. You can often identify Macs that use the PowerPC processor by name. Look for "Power Mac", "PowerBook", G3, G4, or G5. The newer processor technology Macs use today is the Intel processor. Yes, this is the same processor that most Windows computers use, which as I will explain later, is very beneficial to those who want to run Windows software on a Mac. Intel-based Macs do not include the "Power" moniker, so look for names such as "MacBook", "MacBook Pro", or "Mac Pro". Some Macs, such as the iMac or Mac Mini do not reveal what kind of processor they use by name. To identify the processor in these Macs, choose "About this Mac" from the Apple Menu in the upper left corner. The informational window that follows will identify the processor.

If you have an older PowerPC-based Mac, your choices for running Windows software are somewhat limited. Your only real choice is emulation software, such as Virtual PC (http://www.microsoft.com/mac/products/virtualpc/virtualpc.aspx?pid=virtualpc). Emulation software basically runs a virtual Windows computer inside the Mac OS. Almost all Windows software will run in emulation, with a few exceptions, such as 3D games. While emulation software often gets a bad rap for being slow, it can be extremely useful for Windows software that is not particularly processor intensive.

If you have an Intel-based Mac, you have two main choices. The first option is the ability to boot your Mac directly into Windows. This is done with a technology from Apple called Boot Camp (http://www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/). With Boot Camp, your Mac becomes a full-fledged Windows machine, bypassing the Mac OS altogether. Since Windows is running "natively" on an Intel processor, just like in a regular Windows computer, it runs at full-speed, again just like a regular Windows computer. Boot Camp is useful for users who need to spend a significant amount of time in Windows, such as a user who uses Windows at work, but prefers the Mac OS at home or otherwise. Boot Camp is also useful for people who want to run Windows games on a Mac, since there is no performance penalty for running Windows in this way. The main drawback to Boot Camp is that because the Mac must be rebooted to switch between the Mac OS and Windows, it's not particularly convenient for users who want to use both operating systems at the same time.

The second option for Intel-based Macs is ideal for users who want to use Windows software without rebooting the Mac. "Virtual machine" software, such as Parallels (http://www.parallels.com/en/products/desktop/) or VMWare Fusion (http://www.vmware.com/products/fusion/), run a virtual Windows computer inside the Mac OS. This is a similar idea to the emulation software for PowerPC processors. However, with these "virtual machine" products, only a small performance penalty is incurred, since Windows is running "natively" on the same Intel processors it would be on a regular Windows computer. Virtual machine products are useful for users who occasionally need to run Windows software on their Mac, or who want to use both Mac OS software and Windows software at the same time. The main drawback to virtual machine products is that more RAM is required since the Mac will be running two operating systems simultaneously. Also, compared to Boot Camp, the small performance penalty for running Windows in a virtual machine may be a minor drawback to some users.

The bottom line is that you shouldn't feel that a Macintosh is not compatible with the Windows world. In fact, if you look at the Mac's ability to run Mac, Windows, and UNIX software, it can actually run MORE software than any regular Windows computer. For users buying a new Mac, given the ability to run Windows, it is actually like getting two computers in one.

For all things Macintosh, Marcel is your expert.

Posted by Marcel Brown on August 15, 2007 9:40 PM | | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (1)

July 19, 2007

Q: All the stores I shop at only have computers with Windows Vista. How can I get a computer WITHOUT Vista?

- submitted by Susan Young, Glen Carbon, IL

A: One simple answer many people overlook is to buy an Apple Macintosh. Macs, of course, come with the Mac operating system, not Windows Vista. (Side note: modern Macs can run Windows Vista or XP as well - Macs are like 2 computers in one). However, most people asking this question are wanting to get a computer with Windows XP. For those people, here is the advice I've been giving.

The first thing to do is to stop shopping at "big box" stores for your computers. Without going into too much detail, the quality of computer you can purchase at your average retail store is suspect, and the level of service and support you can expect to receive is usually quite low. Step out of the mindset that computers can be bought and sold like paper clips or toothpaste. With the importance of computers in our everyday lives or businesses, a computer purchase should be done with care and planning, not browsing and impulse.

For most computer purchases, I recommend that you establish a relationship with a quality and reputable vendor local to you. Local vendors can customize your computer to your needs, including the choice of operating system that your computer will run. Quality vendors should use more reliable components, increasing your odds of trouble-free operation over the years. Finally, quality vendors should also provide responsive and hassle-free support policies, so if you do have problems with your hardware, they will rectify the situation quickly.

If for some reason a local vendor is not an option, Dell is the only large on-line vendor to actively offer the choice of Windows XP with most of their computers (at the time of this writing). Dell gives you this choice easily through their on-line store. Gateway and HP do have some models available with Windows XP, but you must call them and ask for this option. They do not publicize this or give you the option through their on-line stores. The last time I checked, there was often an additional charge from Gateway or HP to customize your computer with Windows XP. So Dell is the easy choice, but if you prefer another vendor, you will probably need to talk to them on the phone and be prepared to pay extra.

A few words of advice: if you do purchase a computer from a large on-line vendor, stay away from the cheapest models. They are cheap for a reason. Also, make sure you get at least 1 GB of RAM.

E-mail me your technology questions and have them answered in a future issue!

Posted by Marcel Brown on July 19, 2007 8:51 PM | | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (1)

June 19, 2007

Q: What is the difference in all the wireless formats (802.11 b, a, g, n)?

A: For the most part, if you are interested in wireless networking for Internet access, it doesn't matter much which implementation you go with, as they are all faster than any Internet access commonly available. However, if you are interested in wireless networking to share files across a local network, then the latest "n" standards may be of interest to you.

The 802.11 standard defines the types of wireless networks we are commonly familiar with today. The original standard (802.11 without a letter behind it) was not commonly used in the mainstream. Released in 1997, it topped out at 2 Mbps/Sec.

802.11b was the first mainstream wireless network implementation, defined in 1999. It uses the 2.4 GHz frequency range and runs at 11 Mbps/sec. 802.11b eventually was termed "Wi-Fi" by the then newly created Wi-Fi Alliance.

Released in 2003, 802.11g was the next implementation in the 2.4 GHz frequency range, supporting 54 Mbps/sec. It is also backward compatible with 802.11b. Some proprietary implementations of 802.11g can support speeds of 108 or 125 Mbps/sec. The Wi-Fi Alliance updated the "Wi-Fi" term to include a letter indicating which standard is being referred to (i.e. Wi-Fi b or Wi-Fi g).

802.11n is the next in the line of 2.4 GHz family. Currently, the "n" standard is not yet ratified, but there are already products available that use the proposed standard. These are called "draft n" or "pre-n" products. 802.11n will support speeds of up to 200 Mbps/sec, and will be backwards compatible with 802.11b and 802.11g.

Some of you may be wondering, "what about 802.11a?" Others are probably asking, "there's an 802.11a?" In 1999, 802.11a was an extension to the original 802.11 standard that uses the 5.8 GHz frequency range. It supports 54 Mbps/sec, but since it does not use the 2.4 GHz frequency, it is not compatible with the 802.11b/g/n standards. As the letter sequence indicates, 802.11a was actually created before 802.11b. However, 802.11b was first to mainstream market. Due to the explosive popularity of 802.11b, the fact that 802.11a was not backwards compatible with 802.11b hindered its acceptance.

For more help with networking, wireless or not, feel free to contact Marcel.

Posted by Marcel Brown on June 19, 2007 9:18 PM | | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

May 14, 2007

Q: Should I turn my computer off when I'm not using it?

A: This is one of the more common questions I get. I believe one of the reasons I get asked this so often is due to the common advice that says you should leave your computer on all the time because turning it on and off shortens its life. Other people wonder the opposite: will leaving my computer on all the time burn it out?

Another reason I get this question so often is because people are concerned about their energy usage (especially now that power rates have gone up significantly in Illinois). The underlying question is how much power does my computer use and can I save significantly by leaving it off when I'm not using it?

I'll first say that modern computers are designed so that they can be turned on and off without any negative effects. So don't worry if you like to turn off your computer when not using it. You're not hurting it, no matter what the common myth says.

The reason a common myth like this survives is because there may have been an element of truth to it at one time. While I can't find any definitive proof, some older computers (like from the 70's or 80's) may have been fragile enough that repeated power cycling (a few times a day) could have worn them enough to cause damage to the computer (or more likely the power supply or power switch).

Secondly, most modern computers can run 24/7 for years and years without problem. In fact, the computer I'm writing this on has run nearly 24/7 for about 8 years now (let's hear it for the Macintosh!). The life expectancy of most of the parts of a computer (except, notably, the hard drive - see my article about hard drive transplants) is far beyond the time the computer would become obsolete. So if you like to leave your computer on all the time, you're not really hurting it either.

But if you do leave it on all the time, are you wasting electricity? That depends on what you define by wasting. According to the "Mr. Electricity" web site, a typical desktop computer uses about 65 - 250 watts of electricity when on. That seems like a lot, and it can be. However, most computers are set to go to sleep after a period of time. Mr. Electricity says a sleeping computer uses 1 - 6 watts. So if your computer is asleep most of the time, it's using some electricity, but not a lot. You may still think that a few watts is worth saving. However, keep in mind that most computers still draw some power even when off. Usually this is around 1 watt. So you'd need to unplug your computer to make it totally stop drawing power. It really all boils down to a matter of convenience vs. saving power.

My recommendation is to make sure your computer is set to sleep and don't worry too much about it. You're not hurting it by leaving it on, and the small amount of power you'd be saving by turning off your computer or unplugging it isn't probably worth it. If you are really concerned about saving power, there are many other things in your home that use more energy.

Posted by Marcel Brown on May 14, 2007 8:49 PM | | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

April 9, 2007

Q: Should I defragment my hard drive?

A: This is one of the more common questions I get (along with "should I turn my computer off at night?" - which I'll talk about next time). Defragmenting a hard drive (also defrag or defragging), seems to be one of the more well-known and talked about computer maintenance tasks. The issue is whether defragging a hard drive is worth the effort. The answer may surprise you.

Basically, a defrag reorganizes the data on your hard drive so that files are more contiguous - meaning the data that makes up a file is grouped together more closely on the hard drive. In theory, this makes it quicker for a hard drive to retrieve data. This is because it can read related data all in the same area of a hard drive instead of needing to access data that is scattered. Sounds like a good idea, right? Well, it used to be a really good idea years ago. Nowadays, while a defrag technically does make your hard drive faster, the difference is usually too small to really notice.

When computers were slower, hard drives were also slower - and much smaller. Tweaking your hard drive to get every bit of speed out of it could save a fair amount of time. This was especially true if your hard drive was at or near full capacity. Hard drives become much more fragmented when they get full. So small and slow hard drives were a recipe for noticeably decreased performance. Defragging was a good idea.

In today's age, computers are much faster and they come with faster and very large hard drives. Because hard drives are faster, the performance drag due to fragmented hard drives is proportionally smaller. Since hard drives are so much bigger, most people do not get anywhere near filling their drives up. Along with the fact that today's operating systems are "smarter" about storing data on hard drives to limit fragmentation, severe fragmentation is rare anymore. Often, a defrag can take one or more hours to complete. So while defragmenting usually does no harm, the time and effort put into it will rarely pay for itself.

Note that I say "usually" a defrag does no harm. Defragging is a very intensive process to the hard drive. It can be enough to push a hard drive to fail if it was close to failing already. So while this isn't meant to alarm you, you should make sure you have a good backup anytime you chose to defragment your hard drive. And if you have ANY suspicion that your hard drive may be failing (like hearing clicking sounds from your hard drive) especially if your drive or computer is over 3 years old, DO NOT defragment it.

Now this article may provoke disagreement from many other technical people. In some circles, defragging is like an old wives tale, passed on from generation to generation. Again, it used to be a good idea, but not anymore for most people today. Certainly there are many cases where a defrag can make sense. But those cases are usually reserved for high-performance environments such as servers and workstations, as well as "performance junkies" who want to tweak every bit of speed out of their systems. But those types of people aren't the ones asking me for advice. So to wrap up, feel free to defrag your computers if you feel you need to, say maybe once or twice a year, but certainly don't worry about it if you don't.

Posted by Marcel Brown on April 9, 2007 7:31 PM | | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

March 6, 2007

Q: Will the new Daylight Savings Time affect me?

Generally speaking, unless you or your company run a time-sensitive application, at worst you will need to manually set the clock on your computer forward an hour. The other exception is if you run software to manage your schedule. If you manage your calendar on your computer (or PDA), you should check for an update from the software developer. Regardless of what you do, simply be aware of your appointments for the first few days of the new Daylight Savings Time and make sure your appointments aren't set for one hour later than they should be.

If you're running Windows XP, make sure you run Automatic Updates (or have run it recently), and your PC should automatically take care of the time change. Older versions of Windows should download and run the utility "EZ Time Zone". This tool is also nice if you need to update several machines across a network, or if you don't want to run Automatic Updates on Windows XP.

If you use Microsoft Outlook, you should download and run the Outlook Time Zone Tool - http://support.microsoft.com/kb/931667

Mac OS 10.4 users should make sure they've updated to Mac OS 10.4.5 or later, and also downloaded the latest Apple DST update. Mac OS 10.3 users should make sure they've updated to 10.3.9 and downloaded the latest Apple DST update. All these updates are available via Automatic Software Update.

Mac OS Classic users should read this article I've written - http://www.marcelbrown.com/techbytes/2007/03/mac_os_classic_and_daylight_sa.html

Palm OS users should download the Daylight Savings Time Update - http://www.palm.com/us/support/downloads/dst_palmos.html

If you have any questions regarding the new Daylight Savings Time and your technology, please contact me as soon as possible.

Posted by Marcel Brown on March 6, 2007 11:07 PM | | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

February 13, 2007

Q: Should I upgrade to Windows Vista?

A: This is a very common question lately, as the newest version of Windows, "Vista", was just released to the public late last month. While I could go on and on about the details of Vista and why or why not you should upgrade, I'll keep it brief.

Basically, if your computer is NOT critical to your business, personal, or family use, and you want to try out the new features, then feel free to upgrade to Vista. Of course, make sure you have enough RAM, a fast enough processor, and a powerful enough video card to take advantage of all of Vista's new features.

However, like most users, if your computer is too critical to risk significant downtime, then I strongly advise that you stay away from Vista for at least a year, if you upgrade at all. I can sum up the reasons for this in three main points:

First, Vista is the most significant upgrade to Windows since Windows 95. So many new technologies are incorporated into Vista that the odds of bugs and compatibility problems are greatly increased. This is especially likely given Microsoft's track record at putting out new software.

Second, Vista's hardware requirements are significantly greater than that of Windows XP. While many recent vintage computers meet Microsoft's minimum requirements for Vista, many experts seriously doubt that the minimum requirements will give a reasonable user experience. To experience all of Vista's new features, the great majority of computers in the public today will need a significant RAM upgrade, as well as an upgraded video system.

Thirdly, the jury is still out whether all the new features in Vista will really benefit users. Many features are low-level, behind the scenes improvements that most users won't understand yet alone perceive any difference. The most talked about and noticeable new features are cosmetic in nature. While this can generate a lot of "wow" factor, it can also create a learning curve for all users, experienced or novice.

When factoring all the costs associated with the upgrades against any possible benefit to Vista, it is very tough to recommend upgrading at all. By the time most users wait a year or two, it will make more sense to buy a new computer with Vista on it, than to upgrade their old computers.

The bottom line is that most users should wait to upgrade to Vista, and then make the decision to upgrade or simply buy a new computer.

E-mail me your technology questions and have them answered in a future issue!

Posted by Marcel Brown on February 13, 2007 7:06 PM | | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (1)

RSS Feed / Subscription

Subscribe to this blog's feed
[What is this?]

Search


About Q & A

This page contains an archive of all entries posted to Technology Bytes in the Q & A category. They are listed from oldest to newest.

Promotional is the previous category.

Tech Tips is the next category.

Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

Creative Commons License
This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Powered by
Movable Type Personal 4.12