Files, Folder, and Organization
I have used iTunes for several years now and in that time I have become accustomed to managing my music through software as opposed to file explorers. One of the first things I do when I install iTunes is ensure that iTunes is set to “Keep iTunes Folder Organized.” This ensures that my music is kept intact, in nicely organized folders, and that my file names reflect the actual titles of the songs. Zune offers none of this. Absolutely none. You can change the track title, artist, track number, etc through the software, but that song will remain in its original location with its original file name. This makes everything from backing up files to finding the files on the local disk a tiresome process. Consistency is key, and the Zune has absolutely none when it comes to file management.

I should note that when you purchase songs from the Zune Marketplace they are kept in the standard /ARTIST/ALBUM/SONG file format. This proves that the Zune *can* organize files, it just chooses not to organize *your* files.

Also, Zune offers the option to monitor a folder for you, something iTunes doesn’t offer. So if you don’t mind doing some file management, you can set Zune to monitor a specific folder and anything you add to that folder will be added to your collection.

Winner: iTunes.

The Miracle of Meta data
When it comes to managing music files, meta data is key. Everything from album art, to song titles, to albums, to track numbers, to year, is all kept in the meta data. Both iTunes and Zune offer methods of managing meta data, but in different ways and with different approaches.

iTunes: Simply put iTunes offers access to more meta data than the Zune. Going into a song via iTunes grants you access to standard info such as artist, song title, year, album name, and album artist. In addition, it also grants you access to comments, bpm, grouping, and total tracks for that album. That last item I use often as I like knowing I am listing to song 4 of 12 as opposed to simply 4. A small nitpick I know, but an important one to me personally. The Zune offers no access to comments, bpm, grouping or total tracks information.

Zune: Even though the Zune has access to less meta data, updating the meta data you do have access to is a much simpler and complete process. You can still edit individual songs manually via a right-click like iTunes, but Zune takes the entire process one step further by allowing you to update the entire albums meta data with one-click (sort of). Right-clicking on an album allows you to search for album information (meta data). Once you find the album, Zune allows you to pick via a drop-down menu which song goes with which title. Once you’re satisfied, you click finished and the Zune updates all of the meta data for that album including the album art. Nice touch!

The Zune also has an option to automatically find album information and update the meta data. You can set it to add only the missing information, or update all of the information to ensure it is consistent. In my limited experience, this service works extremely well, finding song information, artist information, album information, and album art. iTunes can automatically find album art, but you’re left on your own to ensure the song titles, album artists, track numbers and years are correct.

I also want to note that while the Zune does not allow you to access the meta information Comments or Total Tracks, it does alter this information. As the Zune software is indexing the songs, it removes the total track information and adds a string of odd characters (00000304 000004DC …) to the comments section. This information is edited even if you have opted to NOT have Zune update information automatically.

Winner: Zune.

Dude, I Love this Song!
Another key feature of music management is ratings, and this is one area where the Zune looses with flying colors. While iTunes offers the ability to rate songs on the standard 5 star scale, Zune uses a heart system. What is a heart system you ask? Exactly! Nobody knows what the heart system is and it is NOT intuitive.

I played around with it a bit, and here is what I understand about it. Zune basically has a 3 star system, allowing you to declare that you either 1) Hate a song, 2) have no opinion, or 3) Love a song. That’s it. I find this method insufficient since liking a song does not mean I love the song and I need to be able to differentiate between the two. Similarly there are songs I don’t particularly like but like to listen to every once in a great while, and then there are songs I hate and never want to hear again.

For an example of what I mean, read my post on iTunes Smart-Playlists and how they can help you love your collection even more.

Winner: iTunes.

He who Plays, Wins
For starters, both software packages play music, and both sound good. But I’m not interested in the fact *that* they play music, I want to know *how* they play music.

iTunes: There is a myriad of options for playing back your music via iTunes. You can build smart playlists, build normal playlists, shuffle (from one album to your entire collection), alter the sound (via equalizer), crossfade your music, and have iTunes automatically determine the best level to play it at so your music has a consistent sound.

In addition, iTunes has some added bonuses that I really love. The first is Party Shuffle. The ability to add songs to a queue as well as tell iTunes to shuffle your music based on a smart playlist is a huge benefit. Secondly, iTunes offers the ability to play in full screen mode via cover flow while still offering the ability to rate songs. This last ability is incredibly handy as it prevents your computer’s screen saver from kicking on.

Zune: In comparison to iTunes, when it comes to playback the Zune software is extremely limited. You can play an album, play an artist, shuffle (from one album to your entire collection), but that’s about it. There is no equalizer to change the sound of the music, there is no full screen playback, there is no queue to have a controlled shuffle, there is no option to crossfade songs, nor is there an option to have Zune keep your music sound level consistent. Also, the Zune’s smart playlist feature gives you less options to choose from than iTunes.

I will add that the Zune’s now playing screen is fantastic and a step above what iTunes offers. When you’re playing a song the now playing screen shuffles through different high-res pictures and offers some interesting stats on the artist. Unfortunately, this cannot be played back full-screen and is only available for a short selection of artists (this second point will eventually be a non-issue as they add more information).

Winner: iTunes.

Conclusion
While the Zune is a decent program with class A meta data management, it simply falls short is comparison to iTunes and its top-notch playback options and file management. Fortunately the problems are small and could be easily addressed by the Zune team.

* For the ultra-brave, I’ve noticed that you can use both programs to get everything. You set Zune to monitor your iTunes folder and have it automatically update album information. Zune will perform these actions in the background, and once iTunes attempts to play the song it will read the new meta information and display it in iTunes. However, this is not a fool proof plan so use with extreme caution.

1. Focus:
   In the year I have been using my Mac, I cannot recall a single time when an application has ever stolen the focus of my machine. On Windows, applications steal focus about once a day. If you are not familiar with what I am talking about, think about how many times you have been writing a Word document only to have Internet Explorer jump into focus to warn you that a download is done, or a secure connection is expiring, or a page cannot load. This type of focus theft often results in lost productivity as key strokes are lost in the transition and you have to reread what was written and determine what went missing.

   On my Macintosh, this attention theft has yet to happen. Firefox (or Safari) never jumps in front of Word to warn me about a page not loading. In fact, no application ever steals focus to warn me about anything. The closest my Macintosh has come is to have the applications icon bounce around at the bottom of the screen. This can be a bit distracting, but it never steals key strokes or causes me to lose my focus.

2. Shortcuts:
   Other than your basic shortcuts for Copy/Paste/Cut, I was never a big fan of shortcut keys on Windows. Now I am beginning to understand why; they lack consistency. With my Macintosh, I can quit any application with Apple-Q. If I want to close just the in-focus window but not the entire application, Apple-W will accomplish that. Need to minimize the window, just hit Apple-M and it is done. And those shortcuts are consistent across all applications. Of course some applications have app specific shortcuts, but the basics are always the same.

   On Windows, it does not always work so cleanly. So while you hit Alt-F-C to quit Windows Explorer, you need to hit Alt-F-X to quit Internet Explorer. From my experience, most programs alternate between Alt-F-C and Alt-F-X, but the level of effort required to memorize which apps use which shortcuts typically leads to frustration and abandonment of shortcuts entirely. The end result is that more time is spent navigating the mouse through the necessary menu items than is truly warranted.

3. Shortcuts without Focus:
   The only feature I have found more useful than the above two mentioned, is the combination of the two. On both Windows and Mac you can change which program you are focused on by either hitting Alt-Tab (Windows) or Apple-Tab (Macintosh). The difference, on Macintosh you can hit Apple-Tab to change the focus, and then before letting go of the Apple key, hit Q to Quit the application. You never have to look at the actual application to close out of it. I will refrain from giving specifics, but I am sure you can think of a few instances when this ability could come in, handy.

So there you have it. Three little time-saving features that the Macintosh has, that Windows simply lacks. Can you think of some additional ones?

One of the first places I looked for keeping my ever-growing list of favorites online was the infamous del.icio.us. This website is the defacto king of bookmarks in the blogosphere, so I figured I would give it a shot. Unfortunately, I was severely disappointed.

While the website is popular and a good amount of people use it, I just did not see it as being very practical for me. The official decision came down to two factors that I just could not live with. The first being that every bookmark is shared with the entire world by default. While browsing their website will quickly show you why they have this feature, I personally do not want to participate. It is interesting to see that a specific web address (URL) has 3,453 people linking to it, but it is not so great to have people scouring my bookmarks in detail.

The second feature was the layout. By default your bookmarks are listed by date, with the most recently added towards the top of your list. In a sidebar you have a list of tags (everything Web 2.0ish must have tags…i guess) that you assign to your bookmarks and clicking on one of these will display the bookmarks saved under that category. However, the bookmarks under that category are still listed by date (or title if you so choose) with the newest one on top. And while this system works for a few bookmarks, I do not see it being easily manageable once you get a few hundred pages bookmarked with 20 or 30 tags.

Maybe I am asking too much, but I want to conveniently find a bookmark from any computer using less mouse-clicks than it would using the traditional browser based bookmarking system. Is that really too much to ask? Apparently!

I tried a few other online managers such as MyWeb by Yahoo, MyBookmarks, Google Bookmarks and just about any other web-based service that will let you mark a page for later viewing and none of them really provide the type of experience I was looking for. So finally, at the point when I was ready to abandon the idea, I found salvation in the most unlikely place; Google Reader.

Google Reader is actually not an online bookmarking system. Instead, it is a news aggregator. Fortunately for me, most of the websites I visit on a daily basis and therefore care to bookmark have feeds that I can subscribe too. In addition, Google Reader allows you to “star” an item (anyone who uses Gmail will know exactly how this works) for later retrieval. This makes browsing a website, coming across an interesting article, and saving it to read later an absolute breeze. As an added bonus, Google Reader is accessible and easy to use from mobile phones.

Now what about those pages with no feeds that you want to save for future reference? Well, given the absolute letdown of the above services, I decided to go with the one I disliked the least; Google Bookmarks. I actually dislike Google Bookmarks because the navigation has the same issues as del.icio.us, but it wins my vote for no reason other than the fact that bookmarks are kept private by default. I understand everyone’s love for sharing, but I simply prefer to have the option of sharing something over the option of keeping something private.

In closing, I think there is serious room for improvement in the world of online bookmarking. While del.icio.us is great for finding interesting sites that other users have come across recently, it, like the others, does not do a great job of managing bookmarks in a way that is convenient for the user. So until that time arrives, I guess I will keep adding pages to the poorly designed Google Bookmarks.

Random Information: I did decide to use my del.icio.us account after all. I use it to keep a running list of “interesting” websites I come across that I want to share but not write about. You can find those in the “Notable Mentions” section in the sidebar.

My first stop in my search was Apple’s own Pages. I cannot say that I am entirely impressed with the product, but since it was included as a free-trial with my Macbook, I figured I should at least consider it. As Apple’s first entry into the word processing arena it is not a bad product. It does everything that you would want a word processing program to do (format, bold, italicize, etc.) without including unnecessary and unwanted in-your-face features. I like that. However, that is all it offers. There is no alternative to Excel. So while you could probably get your word processing needs satisfied with Pages, you will still be stuck searching for a place to put your charts and graphs. And since the processing program will run you $79, it is hard to recommend it to anyone. In fact, I would recommend that most people not even bother opening the program in its current state. The program is nice, and has potential, but unfortunately for Apple the $79 price tag unjustifiable considering the Student & Teacher version of Office is only $149.

My next stop is the infamous Open Office. Open Office is supposed to offer a complete and free alternative to Microsoft Office. It includes alternatives for both Word and Excel, as well as some other extras that are useful. So as a package and an idea, Open Office is impressive. However, as a Macintosh application it is frustrating. The program requires that X11 (an Apple application) be installed on your computer before it can function. Installation is relatively easy (pop in your restore CD, check some boxes, and off you go), but the fact that I have to do that is just irritating. In addition, every time you open Open Office, X11 opens. This means that when you go to exit the application, you also have to exit out of X11. And if you accidentally close X11, you will also close Open Office in an unsafe manner and increases the risk of data being lost. A small complaint I know, but it is still irritating enough to keep me from using the program or recommending the program. So while Open Office is by far the most formidable competitor and offers a complete office suite, until they decide to abandon their use of X11, I think it is more of a pain than it is worth.

My third stop was Google’s Docs & Spreadsheets. This particular application is a bit different from the above mentioned as it is completely based online. This is great for people who travel or use several computers (such as myself), as their latest and greatest version is always accessible. And, just like Open Office, Google’s Docs & Spreadsheets is free. It does have its shortcomings though, the biggest of which is that you have to have an account with Google to use it. This is no big deal for me as I already have a gmail account, but I could see it being a significant hurdle for people who have email elsewhere and do not want yet another set of credentials to remember.

As for the actual applications, Google Docs application is very straight forward. You get a text box with a few basic editing options. It also has some advanced functions such as posting to a blog, exporting in PDF or Word format , and collaborative editing. All of these are welcome features, and I particularly like how they are located out of the way and will not interfere with your typing. In fact, I am typing this entry from within Google Doc’s & Spreadsheets right now. My only complaint about the application is that it does not check for correct grammar. It has spell check, but one of my favorite features of Word is its ability to analyze your sentences, find runons, repeat words, or just all around awkwardness, and warn you with a nice green squiggly line. Google’s Docs does not do that. Sad. As a basic word editor though, it functions very well and is available anywhere you have an internet connection. A definite plus for the blogger, student, editor, or professional on the run.

Google’s Spreadsheets application on the other hand, while usable, is not as straight-forward or as complete. The online interface is a bit frustrating to use (clicking in cells, selecting them, etc.), but it is bearable. The problem is that Excel operates like a program while Spreadsheets operates like an online application. So while selecting non-adjacent cells in Excel is relatively easy using the “ctrl” key, doing the same thing online is virtually impossible. This makes formatting much more time consuming as you either have to select a large area by dragging, or select each cell individually. Another limitation is that the applications’ canvas is significantly smaller. You can only have 20 columns and 100 rows. This is a big change from the 250+ columns and 65,000+ rows available in Excel. And while I do not usually use 65,000 rows of data, I do frequently use more than 100.

So in the end, Microsoft Office still rains supreme. While each of the above mentioned applications provide a piece of the overall package, no single application trumps Office in its ease-of-use and thoroughness (Open Office is close, but I really hate the X11 requirement). I should state however that Google Docs has quickly become my word editor of choice. As mentioned, it does not have the bells and whistles that Word has, but the convenience of opening any web browser on any computer and being able to add / edit my work is a priceless convenience that I am growing very fond of. However, Google Spreadsheets has gone almost entirely unused. I just cannot get over the size limitation and slight awkwardness of the user interface. Good thing for me I have an XP machine with Office 2K3 laying around.

From the moment it was announced people started claiming Microsoft’s new service to be the “Apple-Killer” and pointing out how Apple must be frustrated since Microsoft beat them to the living room. Others simply focused on the technical superiority of the Xbox’s HD content compared to Apple’s almost as good as DVD resolution. However, I think people are wishful thinking and creating a false rivalry. Yes it is true that they both will allow an individual to watch downloaded content on their TV, but just because two devices share the same end result does not necessarily mean they are in competition with one another. In fact, I would say that one word will keep these two services from competing with one another: portability.

Apple sells its movies and television shows to customers because people want to enjoy their media on-the-go. Instead of sitting shotgun on a road trip and sleeping, sitting uncomfortably on an airplane staring at a tray table, or watching fellow commuters on the local mass-transit at 6am with a skeptical eye, they want to watch an episode of 24, Prison Break, BattleStar Galactica, etc. This is why people buy movies/television shows from iTunes. Nobody purchases television series from iTunes with the intention of watching it on their TV. I know that sounds odd, but it is the truth. Sure, being able to watch their favorite episode of the Chapelle Show on their glorious 42″ HDTV when at home would be a nice perk, but that option is just that, a perk. Apple understands this, recognizes that its users love perks, and therefore is releasing the iTV to allow people to watch their portable content at home easily. I know many people want it to be more, but that is it. They are simply looking to make portable content easily enjoyable at home.

Microsoft on the other hand is attempting to deliver content to your home, and only your home. All of the content downloaded from Xbox Live Marketplace will be stored on your Xbox. And since nobody is going to be packing around their Xbox, a television, and a hefty battery pack to watch content on the go, Microsoft’s offering has no portability. None. It is at the home content only. That is why I do not see the two competing with one another for customers. Apple is occupying the spare time of the on-the-go individual, while Microsoft is trying to satisfy the HD cravings of the almighty couch potato. They are two separate customers, with two separate needs, and the companies solutions illustrate this.

So if Microsoft is not competing with Apple, the question is who is Microsoft competing against? Cable/satellite providers. Microsoft wants to offer its users the ability to purchase HD television shows, or rent HD movies, so they can watch them at their convenience. And while this “sounds” new and exciting, it is nothing but the same old offering in new packaging. Companies such as Comcast have been, and currently do, provide its customers the exact same functionality (minus the purchasing of television shows) and convenience that Microsoft is attempting to provide with its upcoming service.

As an example, with the click of an “on demand” button on my remote, I have the option of renting (for a 24hr window just like the Xbox service) any movie of my choice in glorious HD. Or, I could pay Comcast $10 more a month, get DVR functionality, and record all of the television shows I want. This allows me to enjoy the content I want, when I want, just like the Xbox Live service. And just like the Xbox service, the content cannot be easily transported or enjoyed outside of my living room. I am trapped to the confines of my living quarters. This offering is drastically different from the Apple option which allows me to be entertained not only when I want, but where I want.

So in closing, while the Microsoft vs. Apple war is always an interesting one to watch, it looks like we will have to wait a while longer before we get to really see the two battle it out for the living room. For now though, congrats to Apple for offering users the easiest way to enjoy their favorite past-time while in transit or at home. And congrats to Microsoft for being able to repackage an old offering and convince people its new.

Now usually this is not something I would write about, but I find this particular upgrade conversation interesting. For example, the conversation on when the new processors would be included has got hyped up so much that many people have held off purchasing a new Macbook (I almost did the same) until the new processors are included. They want the new processor and they want the 20% increase. However, is the wait really worth it?

The short answer: No.

The long answer: To answer this question (which I asked myself a few weeks ago), I looked at my computer purchasing pattern. After looking at the date (below), I noticed that I typically buy a new computer every two and half years. In addition, with each purchase I typically receive an increase in performance of more than double (100% increase) what I currently have.

So given those results, I had to ask myself if waiting for the “claimed” 20% increase in speed really was worth waiting around for? As stated, it was/is not.

On one side of the coin, one would say that it is. By looking at the graph, it is apparent that over time the percentage of performance increase per purchase has decreased. Therefore, waiting for an additional 20% could be justified. However, given that my upgrades are for more than double the performance, an additional 20% seems like nothing and most likely would not be noticeable while performing day to day tasks.

Another factor to take into consideration with the above numbers is that most people do not upgrade their systems as often as I do. In fact, I think the average upgrade cycle is more in the five or six year range (I think I read that somewhere at one point in time), so when most people are upgrading they are already seeing performance gains closer to 500%. And really, how noticeable is a 520% increase compared to a 500% increase? Not much.

So the point of this article: stop holding out and upgrade. While holding out for the latest and greatest is a pleasure we all love, it is one that leaves you perpetually unsatisfied. In addition, taking into consideration that the performance increase is only a “claim”, that most users are already seeing performance gains of more than 100%, and that the extra 20% is not likely to give your computer an extra year or two of life, holding out for an additional 20% seems .. well .. ridiculous?

1. Not allow you to use the Aero theme.
2. Only allow you to browse the internet for one hour at a time.
3. Not allow you to open/edit Office documents (Word, Excel, etc.).
4. Check in with Microsoft every month or so to see if it needs to be re-activated.
5. And then some…

Sound a bit scary / annoying? It is. I think this is a HUGE mistake Microsoft is making that will inevitably force more and more people to abandon the Windows platform and migrate to competing solutions. What do you think?

[Article Link]

Update: It is somewhat ironic, but just moments after posting this I found a thread on the Microsoft forums detailing how Windows XP machines with a VLK (Volume Licensing Key) were failing validation. For those who do not know, VLK’s are used by businesses, schools, labs, and anyone else who purchases a few hundred or so machines at once. Now, just imagine if a few hundred of your employers computers failed validation at one time and would not allow anyone to use their Outlook (email) or open / edit their Word and Excel documents. Because that is what would have happened if they were using Vista. Ssccaarryy.

[Article Link]

Now unlike some, I did not switch because I think Apple makes the best OS or because I am a huge fan of theirs (although they have been growing on me lately). I switched predominately because I am unhappy with Microsoft and where they are taking the Windows platform, and partly because I was curious.

Anyways, now it is time for my rant on why I gave up using Windows…

/Begin Rant

I like Windows, and think overall it is a good Operating System that with the correct adjustments is a rather secure system to live with. As an example, I have used it since its 3.11 (pre-Start menu) days and in that time I have gotten a virus a total of two times. One of which was caused by me running some executable I should not have been running, and the other caused by some bad code at Microsoft (it was the Blaster Worm to be precise). Now given that track record, I would argue that Windows is relatively secure. Granted, I disable a number of system services (secondary logon, remote registry, etc.), do not use an administrator account for normal usage, and stay away from Internet Explorer (IE), so my situation differs from the standard. However, I would still say that Windows is secure enough, and therefore, security was not what drove me away; it was usability.

My first point of aggravation with Windows started with MSN Messenger (I think it was version 6) when Microsoft started stealing my http clicks and opening them in Internet Explorer. As stated, I do not have IE set as my default browser and therefore do not want web pages opening in IE. However, whenever I click a URL in MSN Messenger, it opens it in Internet Explorer. I find this to be a ridiculous and monopolistic practice as there is no logical reason for forcing URLs to open in IE. None!

The second strike came with system requirements. It bothers me slightly that I need to have an insanely powerful computer to run the latest and greatest version of Windows. I can understand the need for bleeding edge technology when you want to play video games, do graphic design, or produce music, but not to simply run the computer. It just does not make sense. And yes, I know XP will run on some older systems, but have you tried using it on those systems? It is painful. As an example, it takes nearly double the horsepower to run an XP system as it did a 2K system and it looks like Vista will require nearly double of what XP requires. Why? Again, I am not talking about the minimum system requirements, but the specs needed to actually have an enjoyable experience.

The third and final strike involves none other than Microsoft’s Windows Genuine Activation (WGA) toolkit. I hate this thing; a lot. I can understand initially having a product phone home to activate, and I actually thought the initial idea was a good one. However, the newer renditions of WGA seem to be released more often (almost monthly?) and seem to phone home more often, and over smaller items, than before. It is a skeptical practice, and one that I cannot endorse. I do not need too, nor want to, nor am I going to, phone in to Microsoft every time I make the slightest change to my system.

As an example, the other day I removed my secondary hard drive from my computer because I wanted to move it to an external USB enclosure so it did not have to be powered on all the time. When I turned on my computer after removing the hard drive, XP Professional quickly informed me that changes had been made to the system and I had three (3) days to activate or XP would become unusable. Are you serious? I have to phone-home and inform Microsoft that I removed a hard drive? No thanks, I’d rather not. It makes me wonder though, are services like these causing the ever-increasing minimum specifications to use Windows? If so, what a waste of resources…

Anyway, I can understand changing items such as the CPU or the motherboard causing WGA to require re-authentication, but things such as DVD drives, hard drives, and RAM are items that even the most novice of individuals can and will swap out from time to time. Not to mention these are probably the most frequently changed parts in a computer, so I see no good reason for those types of changes to require Windows to be re-activated.

/End Rant

So in the end, it is adios Windows and hello OS X.

1. I bought an Xbox 360 and it is taking up an insane amount of time. I love it.
2. I sold my computer (this is actually the biggest reason for the lack of updates) and it was probably the single most difficult decision I have made all year. So for the first time in about forever, I do not own a computer. It’s a scary feeling, and accessing the internet from a cell phone is convenient, but not fun.
3. I got rid of the picture section on my website. It will be back again shortly. I had some big dreams for my photo section, and really like the Gallery setup (you can see the benefits of it here), but it is just harder to keep up-to-date than I care to deal with. So, I am thinking I am going back to Flickr and it should be up and running sometime in the near future (maybe).
4. My house will no longer have Windows. I will post more about this later, but I am switching over to Apple in the very near future.
5. I am continually downsizing my life by parting ways with “stuff.” I have already said goodbye to one futon, a Roland XP-60 keyboard, my computer, a home theater system, and an absurd amount of nick-knacks. Next up is two more futons, a PSP, an original Xbox (with about 20 games), and enough clothing for a family of four. I may even start parting ways with my shoe collection.

Well that is it for the time being. I am sure some of these items will be expanded on in future postings. Until then, adios and enjoy.

So, what does your inbox look like?

The Necessary Basics:
I was not asking for too much (I do not think). Here is the list of what I wanted on my iPod:

1. Minimal (hopefully none) duplicate songs.
2. Zero songs that I do not like.
3. More songs that I like, than songs that I sort of like.
4. Songs that I have not heard recently.
5. New songs on my iPod every day (without manually adding them).

Of the above, I think number five was my key need. I like hearing all of my music, and with that many songs, I just do not want to have to manually add and delete songs from a playlist everyday (or ever).

The Structure:
In the end, while not what I imagined, the following structure provided me with exactly what I was looking for. It contains six smart playlists which each feed into another smart playlist. All of the playlists are selected to sync automatically with my iPod upon connect. Here is the breakdown of each playlist (name – rule – description). All playlists are sorted by number, and contain songs not heard within the past 14 days.

1. 0 Star: 250 Songs that have not been rated. This playlist ensure that I constantly have music that I have never heard before on my iPod. It also helps me identify which songs I have not yet rated. The goal is to eventually have this playlist have zero songs.
2. 2 Star: 25 Songs that I have rated 2 stars. These are songs that I sort of do not like, but will listen to every once in a great while.
3. 3 Star: 50 Songs that I have rated 3 stars. This is a playlist of songs that I can listen to, but really do not like or dislike.
4. 4 Star: 75 Songs that I have rated 4 stars. These are songs which I like.
5. 5 Star: 100 Songs that I have rated 5 stars. These are my favorite songs. The ones I can listen to continuously without getting tired of them.
6. The Good Mix: 500 Songs selected randomly from the above five playlists. This playlist provides two things. 1) An easy to select playlist in my iPod that will play the songs beginning with the song that was added to the playlist first and 2) a list which I direct my Party Shuffle to select from.

Example (5 Stars):

As you can see, I have more songs on my iPod that I like, than I have songs that I do not like. In addition, I have zero songs which I rate as one star. Therefore, songs rated with one star in my iTunes are deemed songs which I never want to listen to again; ever.

Or, if the above does not cut it for you, you can always head over to smartplaylists.com and get a gander at what some other folks are doing. Enjoy.

I have yet to try it (and I probably will refrain from trying it), but there are a few things that stand out right away that make me cringe just a bit. The first is that I know this little myspace addition will include a toolbar, a search bar, and the same “take over the desktop” mentality that all of the major instant messaging clients have. To me, that translates into a few friends saying “…fix my computer?” The second is that it “requires” the use of Internet Explorer. This means that folks will happily install this, use Internet Explorer, and get hit with the latest and greatest piece of spyware/virus/you name it. To me, that translates into a few more friends saying “…fix my computer?” Double grrr.

Maybe I should start charging by the hour?

Now before I continue, I should disclaim and say that I have only used Google Calendar for about 15 minutes (three entries). With that said, here are my initial impressions.

It looks nice. If you have Gmail, then you will feel right at home with Google Calendar, as they use the exact same styling for the layout (navigation on the left, search on the top, content stretches to the right). As of now the ads are not on the right of the screen, but I assume that eventually they will be. It is just a matter of time.

Concerning adding events, it is easy. Roughly four mouse clicks and you have an event added to your calendar. However, this simplicity has created a serious lack of options. With MSN Calendar (Hotmail) and Yahoo! Calendar at least I can add categories (Birthday, Holiday, Vacation, Business, etc.) to my entries to help me distinguish at a glance what is what. None of that here. I can add a description, but I personally do not want to type in “Birthday” over and over again. I want to select it from a drop-down, and have a little cake show up next to the entry (or have it be a certain color). And given that such a feature would be an easy/small addition, I cannot see why it is not there.

Next is the view. You can change your default view to almost anything you want (one day, three days, one week, two weeks, a month, etc.). However, none of the features work particularly well. The month view is your standard monthly view. The problem is that the entries are shows in plain blue text with really small letters. They do not stand-out against the background in any fashion and are easy to glance over. There is also a mini-month view on the sidebar which has dates that have an event in bold. However, if your event falls on a Sunday, the bold is hard to distinguish against the blueish background color of the calendar. This is just bad design.

Anyway, seeing as how I like to visually see what is coming up in the near future I selected the “Agenda” view which shows a list of upcoming events. However, there are two issues regarding this view that keep me praising this view.

The first is that it is an incredible waste of space. Something like an “Agenda” (which is basically a to-do list) should be located as a sidebar item. That way, I can view my preferred layout (weekly, monthly, work-week, etc.) and still be able to glance at what is coming up next with minimal effort and no clicking of the mouse. However, I cannot. I either look at the week, or at the month, or at the agenda. I cannot do both, and I am required to click my mouse to see one or the other. Again, this is just bad design.

The second issue I have with the “agenda” view is that the amount of time shown is too great. By default my calendar is showing events between 02/12/2006 and 08/05/2006. I really do not need to see six months into the future. If I were to actually populate this calendar with one of my old school schedules or my current work schedule, I would have an agenda list that is at least a few hundred entries long. That is simply too much. I like that I can view that far into the future should I need too, but I think having it as a default setting is again, simply bad design. Also, if today is 04/13/2006, why would I want to see back to 02/12/2006 in my agenda? I wouldn’t. When I look at my agenda I want to see what I have to do “next.” I want to be able to glance at the first entry and know that that is the very next thing that I have to do. I do not want to see what I did a month ago. Nor do I want to glance at the top item and get confused and start preparing for something that has already occurred. Grrr.

Ok. That is all for now. I am going to play with the calendar some more. It has some nice features (calendar sharing, xml support, easy importing, etc.) that I want to play with. The calendar sharing looks promising as it looks like you can have overlapping calendars with other Google Calendar users (this would be great for group projects). I will try and report back later and give some details on what I find. Adios and enjoy.

And what did they post? Well …

On the site, officers discussed their jobs, commented on arrests they had made — including the arrest that resulted in a driving-under-the-influence charge against country music singer John Michael Montgomery — and used derogatory language about gays and the mentally disabled.

I mean c’mon!? These folks are just begging to be fired. So what is the moral of this story? DO NOT POST THINGS ABOUT YOUR EMPLOYER ONLINE. EVER! Adios folks.

My next option is to use a media player (a built-in Windows Media Player app maybe?). This seems like a good idea, only that not everyone who visits my site uses Windows, and I do not want to alienate any of my visitors. In addition, using a media player implementation means that I cannot customize the look/feel to fit the theme of my site. Grrr.

So, since I cannot make up my mind, I am asking you to make it up for me. Should I use Flash or WMP? Or, if you know of another option, please suggest it. I am completely open at the moment. My only real requirement is that it has a play/stop button, as I refuse to have any sounds attacking my visitors without their direct consent.

Anyway, that is all. Let me know what you folks want / prefer / suggest. I need some help. Thanks.

I personally think this is a pretty slick idea. It would be nice to not only read what folks have to say about the articles I post, but also to hear their opinions. Hmmm, I wonder how hard it would be to incorporate this system into the current text-based commenting system I currently have on this blog. What do you folks think about that?

The first time my website went MIA in Google’s listings I thought I got my site delisted (which I probably did – on accident of course). So, I killed my old blogs (they had a few repeat posts), killed the redirect (it pointed to this domain), and scoured the net for any other websites which I previously ran which could have caused me to get delisted. And then, just like that, a few weeks later, my website was back into Google’s listings. However, that did not last long.

The next day (or at least it felt like the next day), I was once again delisted. Only this time, I was relisted within a matter of minutes. Hmmm. I figured they had a glitch with their database or something, and simply paid no attention to it. But then, a few hours later, I was once again missing from the ranks. And it has remained like this for just over a month.

If you do a search for “Fonzo” or “Fonzo’s Biz“, sometimes you get my site, sometimes you don’t. It is (or at least seems) completely random. I cannot figure out how, why, or what is getting my site the on again off again treatment. It is really bothersome.

Ironically, or maybe it is just a coincidence, but right about the time this started I did two major things. One was sign up for Google Sitemaps, and the other was switch from Google Adsense to Yahoo Publisher (review/comparison coming soon). I guess either or could have played a part in the odd behavior of Google, but I would like to believe that they did not play a part in the whole ordeal. However, I simply cannot rule out the closeness of the events.

And regarding Google Sitemaps, my sitemap says that it has been updated recently (last post), but Google’s cache of my site (when it happens to be available), is from about a month ago. So what gives?

Anyway, has anyone else had a problem with Google and their website? My site shows up fine in Google Blogsearch (but who uses that anyway?) and just about every other search engine, but not in Google (well, at least not sometimes). I want to get to the bottom of this.

Oh well. Hopefully they will get it fixed fast. Oh, and this is exactly why I HATE having an online email address. Triple Grrrr.

As I updated my iPod with new songs and deleted the old ones, I noticed the album art problem slowly but surely getting worse and worse. It got so bad that the artwork it showed in the “Now Playing” screen would not even match the artwork it displayed when viewing the artwork Full Screen. Huh? How is it possible that the iPod was looking in two completely different places for artwork. It made/makes no sense.

Well, being a Windows user, my first plan of action (idea) was to go ahead and format the drive, wipe it clean, and start over. Well, thank goodness when it comes to my pricey piece of fun I play on the cautious side, as Apple clearly states that doing such an action is a bad idea. A very bad idea.

Do not use a disk utility program, such as Disk Utility, Drive Setup, or Windows Explorer, to erase iPod. Erasing songs from iPod this way can disable its music playing capabilities and you may have to update or restore iPod to get it to work again.

Whew! I got lucky with that one. I would have had to smack myself if I disabled the “music playing capabilities” of my Nano. So I am happy that I did not kill my little machine, but that did nothing to fix the problem with the displaying of incorrect album art.

Well, I researched, researched, and researched. And, after Googling, MSNing, and Yahooing, I came to the conclusion that I must be the first person ever to break their iPod in such a fashion. I could not find the slightest tidbit of information which listed ways in which I could get my iPod back to normal (well, I could do a restore, but I was hoping for something a little easier).

Then, by pure luck, I decided to open up iTunes and have a look around in the iPod Preferences pane. I noticed a check-mark which enabled or disabled album art on the Nano, and figured I would go ahead and give it a shot. Well, when you disable support, it does exactly what you would think. It makes it so that your iPod will not show any album art. So basically, it forces the Nano to display song information in the old center justified format (AKA ugly).

Thinking that I had conquered my troubles, I once again enabled album art. It took a few minutes for iTunes to optimize the album art for the Nano, and when it finished it quickly transferred over all of the artwork. And, surprisingly, it worked! Wooohooo. My Nano is now back to its original greatness and displaying the correct album art (both in Now Playing and in Full Screen). Sweet. I am happy.

Oh, for those wondering, I think I managed to break it by enabling “disk use” and disconnecting the iPod without actually hitting the eject button in iTunes or disconnecting the device through Explorer. I know I should not do that, but sometimes you are just in too much of a rush to actually go through all of the necessary steps. It is just easier to pull the plug on the device.

Update (12/07/05): Since this seems to be such a big problem, and to make life easier for everyone, I have created some simple steps for you to follow to get your iPod Nano (or Video) to display the correct album art.

Edit: Old steps removed. Please see update.

Update (10/14/06): Some people in the comments section have reported problem using the above methods in iTunes 7, while others have had great success using the above methods within iTunes 7 (please note that in iTunes 7 the iPod options are NOT located under edit -> preferences). I have tried looking into it but have been unable to get my iPod to have the same problem. Therefore, the above fix may or may not fix your specific issue. Either way, please post a comment, your version of iTunes, and any steps you had to perform differently, so that others can benefit also. Thank you.

Update (05/06/08): The steps have changed slightly for iTunes 7.x. Thanks to everyone in the comments that pointed this out.

Update (12/24/08): I’d like to say THANK YOU to everyone who has given this post praise in the comments below. I definitely appreciate it.

Follow these 8 simple steps.
1. Plug you iPod into your computer and open iTunes.
2. In iTunes, goto iPod -> Music
3. Deselect “Display album artwork on your iPod” -> click apply.
4. Your iPod will update. So wait (should take a few seconds).
5. Repeat step “2″
6. Select “Display album artwork on your iPod” -> click apply.
7. Your iPod will update. So wait (may take a minute or two).
8. Tada! Your iPod / iPhone should be back to its original greatness.
– - – - – - – - – - -
9. Add this podcast to your iTunes collection and enjoy (Shameless plug. I apologize.).