Beyond Google
From Christopher Beaver:
Dear Dan -
At the coffeehouse today, I overheard two business students
discussing a business plan. They wanted to start a new form of web
information center for travelers. Then I wondered, why not compete with
Google. They're starting to seem a little tired, aren't they.
Google to my mind has become like watching network TV. The limit
before cable was network TV, those three channels. There were more
networks in the earliest days of television but the essence after World
War II was really only three. Good-bye Dumont. Good-bye
Westinghouse.
With Google it's like walking into a Safeway store. You think you're
getting everything that's possible. The shelves are lined with goods.
But there are also glimmerings at the edges of your thought that you're
being limited, censored, constrained. Where are the organic foods? Is
there any room in the magazines for something other than
CosmoGQHouseFashionYorker?
My searches on Goggle don't seem to turn up very many sites for
individual artists for one objection. You can find them but they don't
really turn up as regularly nor near the top as more commercial or
structured sites. The political spectrum, too, seems awfully narrow.
Where's this fundamentalism I keep hearing about? Very rarely do
foreign sites appear. Then too, we may remember that Google conspires
with China to limit freedom of thought in that country. My own website
is banned in China (not that I take that personally) or should I say,
banned in Google. I'm starting to wonder what Google's doing to all of
us. Are we conspiring to limit our own thought by over-relying on
Google?
Lycos and the usual list of other search engines (which I found
where else, on Google) don't seem that innovative either or maybe I
should be seeking something "more specialized," "more niche" - is that
the way to describe the idea, more like cable TV? Of course I wouldn't
really describe any of the cable stations as edgy or "freeform" or
individualized.
Maybe it's time for new search engines.
Instead of network news, are there any search engines one could
describe as alternative or indie or even (gasp, choke) irresponsible or
rogue? Instead of the New York Times, maybe we could use a little
Village Voice, Berkeley Barb or Boston Phoenix. Where's the Allen
Ginsburg of the internet to help us howl?
Or have I simply been missing search engines that exist right in
front of my eyes?
Many thanks for any and all ideas you have for me. Including not
wanting to hear rants like this one.
Christopher B
Christopher,
Google became the best search engine on the Internet
by developing a weighting algorithm for ordering search results and
indexing everything they could access on the Internet. And they've
constantly tweaked their system as people learned how to take advantage
of one algorithm - it looks like they may have finally solved the
problems caused by link farms as well.
Just as Microsoft Windows isn't the best operating
system but is good enough for 90% of the people all of the time, Google
falls down in certain areas, but for most searches most of the time
it's going to produce useful results. That's why Google owns over 90%
of the search market.
How tight a lock does Google have? Looking at our site
logs, 94% of search engine traffic arrives through Google, 3.5% through
Yahoo (the leader before Google), 0.5% through Ask Jeeves, 0.4% through
MSN, 0.3% through AOL, 0.1% through Dogpile (which uses Google, Yahoo,
MSN, and Ask Jeeves all at once), and 0.1% through Alta Vista, which
was the champion search engine a decade back.
Google just works, although it has its shortcomings,
and it's definitely vulnerable, as were Alta Vista and Yahoo before it.
But of the 36 search engines delivering visitors to Low End Mac in
October, 29 brought in less than 250 visitors - and 13 of those
delivered less than 10.
If Microsoft, Yahoo, Ask Jeeves, AOL, and the rest
can't take 5% of the search market with their resources, odds are
against anyone doing it without a stroke of genius that rivals what
Google did at its launch. Sure, even 0.01% of the search engine market
is a huge number, but I don't think there's money to be made competing
with Google and the other generic search engines. Where money probably
could be made is specialized search engines, such as one specific to
the Mac market or history students or drug research.
Dan
Dan
As usual thanks for your analysis and insight.
One wonders whether some naively enthusiastic person or partners are
even now at work on the specialized search engines you hypothesized. I
use the word "naively," because that's how most of my documentary film
projects usually start . . . with naive enthusiasm. If only I knew at
the beginning what I've learned by the end!!
And for me personally, I have to confess, Google still rules the
roost even with any shortcomings one might be able to cite.
Thanks again for your perspective on Google.
Christopher B
Core 2: The Big Difference Is 64-bit Support
From Yuhong Bao regarding 1 Core, 2
Cores, 4 Cores, 8: How Much Difference Does It Make?:
Dear Dan:
Actually I think the major gain in Core 2 over Core is 64-bit support
and new x86 extensions such as SSE4.
Yuhong Bao
When I wrote that column, we didn't have a 64-bit
version of OS X, so the benefits of 64-bit support in the Core 2
processors was unknown. That changed in October.
Mac OS X 10.5 "Leopard" gives us two things: a true
64-it Mac operating system and a new core written for a world of
multiple CPUs with multiple cores. Leopard is smart enough to determine
which cores share a cache and which don't - and which should work best
for a given task. This probably won't make much difference at all for
the dual processor and dual core Macs, but the the quad-core and 8-core
Macs, it could make them even more efficient.
Primate Labs has done
some extensive benchmarking of Leopard on a Core 2 iMac and a 1.6
GHz single processor Power Mac G4 in 32-bit and 64-bit modes. On the
iMac, 64-bit Leopard is nearly 10% faster overall, while on the Power
Mac it's nearly 14% slower. Breaking things down by individual tests,
the big gain comes in integer performance with Core 2, which is 18%
faster.
I'm sure we'll know more about the benefits of
64-bitness and SSE4 as others put Leopard through its paces.
Dan
Is the Cube a Road Apple?
From Joseph Burke:
Dan
Something you need to to consider is that the value issue with
the Cube was eventually addressed. The
slower model was priced higher than a G4 tower, but the price was lower
than the G4 tower on the faster model, so it was a better value. The
Cube was also intended to be a designer model, a computer that looked
cool with any decor in a nonstandard configuration while still
retaining a family resemblance to the rest of Apple's computers. It
definitely accomplished that goal.
It wasn't intended to be a low-end mainstream machine for the masses
like the mini, so you really can't apply the same value equation to it,
since it was catering to a more upscale market that is willing to pay
more even though better value may be found elsewhere. I also fail to
see how the design of the Cube was "compromised" in any way. Given it's
mission, it does everything it was designed to do and does it well. The
way it disassembles for upgrading was absolutely brilliant thinking.
You have to expect that a machine with compact dimensions like the Cube
or mini are going to come with an external power brick by necessity and
that locating ports for adding peripherals while still maintaining a
clean appearance is going to be a challenge. You also seem to dislike
the convection cooling, yet how many G3 iMacs also used convection
cooling and weren't deemed Road Apples because of it? How about the
early compacts that Steve Jobs deemed should not contain a cooling fan?
Is your opinion of them any less for lack of a fan?
I think that the touch sensitive power button and the location and
close proximity of the ports are insufficient complaints to call it a
Road Apple. I would much rather see the mini in a Cube case than the
one it is in now. At least you would have better upgradability, which
was also a brilliant stroke by Apple in the design of the Cube. Let's
see them get a PCI-Express slot into the mini. The Cube had an AGP
slot, and you could upgrade the video card. It also had the CPU on a
card that is upgradable, and more memory slots than the mini comes
with. It also did not use expensive laptop components like the mini.
The Cube is definitely a better value when compared to the Power Mac G4
than the mini is compared to the iMac or Mac Pro.
As to the Quicksilvers, I am aware that
the 733 MHz DA had a few more features
than the 733 MHz QS and cost more, so let's go the other way and
compare the 733/800 MHz QS's to other models in their own range. The
867/933 MHz singles. How does the value equation change when you
compare the cacheless entry models to the 2 MB cache machines? Is
it far more than you would expect from the difference in MHz alone? If
the 117 MHz PowerBook 1400 and the 233 MHz WallStreet without cache are
singled out from their respective generations as Road Apples, then why
wouldn't the cacheless Quicksilvers be singled out from theirs for the
same reason? It is also a step backwards to remove the cache that was
present in an earlier model. Surely the cache couldn't have added so
much to the price that the entry models would have become unsellable if
it had been included.
You also say that the problems with the snow iBooks are not the
result of an engineering flaw. I say it is. The decision was made by
Apple to go with lead free solder on the production lines. Lead free
solder is more brittle and tends to break down more quickly over time.
The location of the power button also contributes to the problem of
iBook failure. These are both engineering decisions, and should
therefore qualify the G4 snow iBooks as Road Apples. The other issues
with the G3 models look to me like a result of using low quality parts
or the cheapest assemblers to save money. This should also be enough to
qualify for Road Apple status. A laptop should last more than a year
before becoming unusable. I have been using my current eMachines (yes
eMachines ) laptop for over three years. I think it is pretty sad when
a bottom of the barrel PC maker can build a better laptop than
Apple.
We also have an issue of certain G4 PowerBooks that fail to
recognize their second memory slot after a while. This has to be either
an engineering flaw or the sourcing of bad components to save money.
Surely this must also be enough to qualify those models as Road
Apples.
Joseph,
I don't know where you get the idea that I have
something against convection cooling. I don't. It's one of the reasons
the Mac Plus, slot-loading iMacs, Cube, and older,
cooler running PowerBooks were such friendly computers.
I consider each and every version of the Mac mini a
Road Apple - just haven't written the article yet. Overpriced laptop
components, horrible access to the insides, only one RAM slot in the G4
models, and "vampire video" in the Intel models all add up to a
computer that looks cool but costs more than it should and is
desperately short of expansion options.
From a technological standpoint, the Cube was a
success - and from a design standpoint. Except for the power button and
some problems with the enclosure, no real flaws. And very upgradable:
CPU, video, and hard drive. It was universally praised for its looks,
and universally panned for its price. While Apple did later reduce the
price, the damage had been done. The Cube will always be viewed as an
overpriced Mac, although not on the same level as the 20th Anniversary Mac.
I wish you would stop equating the PowerBook 1400 and the "MainStreet" PowerBook G3 Series, which
had no level 2 cache whatsoever, with the Quicksilver models that had a
256 KB onboard level 2 cache running at full CPU speed but no level 3
cache. Benchmark after benchmark has shown less than a 10% performance
difference, whereas the two PowerBooks took a much more significant
performance hit due to their lack of an L2 cache.
Also, you seem to think that the 733 MHz Quicksilver
is the same as the 733 MHz Digital Audio Power Mac but with the L3
cache removed. It's not. Apple had a new motherboard and enclosure for
the Quicksilver Power Macs. Leaving out the L3 cache, which did not
have a huge impact on performance, was a reasonable decision when
designing an entry-level Power Mac.
Dan
The One Thing I Miss from Tiger
From Trevor Howard:
Dan,
Since upgrading to Leopard, I've considered it a mixed blessing, I
see things that are both faster and slower on my Mac (Dual-Core G5, Late 2005, 2 GHz). For
instance, in general, its a little slower than Tiger, a bit noticeable,
but things like Spotlight seem to go quicker, and the folder item count
updates quickly. I haven't really used Spaces yet (I don't see a use
for it for me I guess...). And no Stacks either (I'm still stuck in my
old way of organizing things . . . and I don't know if I feel
like going through trying to integrate stacks into my system for the
50k+ pictures videos and etc. spread across five hard drives.)
But anyways, I'm dealing with the performance loss really, even if
it is (according to istat) eating all but 329 MB of my 3.5 GB of RAM at
idle and loading things feels like Tiger on a Pismo at times. But the
one thing I'm not dealing with is an issue I'm wondering if anyone else
encountered relating to the audio.
See, in my convoluted setup I have a pair of Klipsch Ultra 2.0s
hooked up to the analog speaker port for when I'm sitting right at my
desk, and then an optical cable (as well as a VGA cable) run from the
back of my G5 to my home theater setup across the room - this gives me
the option of, if I'm sitting at my couch, I can watch videos and the
like on my 50" DLP through my home theater system, or if I'm busy at my
desk I have a set of bespoke speakers for that as I watch it in a
window.
So anyways, to watch things on the TV in Tiger, I used to turn the
Klipsch speakers "off" in Tiger by pressing the volume control all the
way down on the keyboard (so I didn't have to reach across my desk and
fiddle with the knob constantly). Note, in Tiger this did not
mute the output from the optical at all, it turned it all the way down
but the volume output was still "active", but not through the analog
speaker output
Not so in Leopard, if you turn the volume all the way down it mutes
everything, so in order to watch stuff with the audio from my
home theater, I have to leave the volume at one bar, which leaves the
Klipsch speakers on, which I hear, across the room, somehow, and it
disturbs me.
Now I looked throughout the audio menu and nowhere can I find any
sort of option to just mute the stupid analog output and leave my
optical active. Am I blind, or did Apple really miss something
here?
Thanks,
Trevor H
Trevor,
I'm living with Tiger for the foreseeable future, as I
still depend on the gloriously useful, increasingly outdated, very
efficient Claris Home Page to write and edit HTML for use on my
websites. Also, I've never used any of my Macs with two audio outputs -
the most I use is a cheap pair of analog speakers so the sound comes
from my desk, not the floor.
I sounds like Apple hasn't really thought things
through on the audio front. Be sure to let Apple know of your problem.
Let's hope 10.5.1 will get it right.
Dan
Dan,
Well I've considered downgrading to Tiger at this point, especially
given the performance issues (which are beginning to get more and more
on my nerves, I'm guessing its the 6600LE graphics card that's causing
a good chunk of my problems here, given the performance issues are
mostly related to loading images up in Preview, moving Preview around,
Exposé at certain times, and when I have a bunch of windows
open). I sadly have yet to write Apple about my issue; I guess part of
me is still thinking in the "It's probably some stupid switch or
something hidden that I missed", and I was hoping someone would point
it out to me.
Ah, yeh, one of the things that "sealed the deal" so to speak with
my conversion to Mac OS was that in the really old days (Win 3.1 + DOS)
I used ClarisWorks for word processing and such, and I very very much
missed it (I always disliked Microsoft Word, because it was not
"simple" - or rather it stopped being simple somewhere around XP), and
I was quite delighted when I fired up AppleWorks to find that it was
identical to the ClarisWorks I loved (at the time I didn't actually
know it was ClarisWorks). And I do remember using Home Page back
in the day (when I was 8, and I actually had my own website, which in
those days was a fairly big deal! Even if I didn't have any idea what
to do with it and never had any meaningful content on it.) And I
remember it was quite fantastic (what little I do remember of it, that
is...)
Anyways, I'm hoping for a patch or something to resolve it if it is
an issue, but I really think Apple will be working on other issues
other users are having before they get to my comparatively little one.
Maybe at least they might release a patch that improves performance for
those of us straddled with a graphics card only a centimeter away from
a GMA 950 (sometimes I ponder in which direction that centimeter
is...)
- Trevor
10 Years on the G3
From Andrew T:
Hi Dan,
Great article covering the G3.
My 233 MHz G3 was my first desktop, and I
still have it sitting beside my desk. I have one question though. In
your article you mention that the earliest G3s ran 7.6? Is this true?
7.6 is one of my favorite OS's and I would love to run it on my G3 and
watch it scream. Can you confirm this or is this a typo in the
article.
Thanks for the great writing and keep it up!
Regards,
Andrew
Andrew,
I have no hands-on experience with the "Kanga"
PowerBook G3, but PB5300s
profile says that it can run Mac OS 7.6, although it shipped with
Mac OS 8.
In the Mac Rumor
forums, RacerX says, "...the PowerBook G3 was pretty much a
PowerBook 3400c with the 603e processor swapped out with a G3
processor. So theoretically Mac OS 7.6 should be able to handle all the
hardware other than the processor." dhazeghi reports, "In case anybody
is still interested, 7.6.1 does not install on an original Kanga G3
PowerBook. I just tried, and I get an error along the lines of 'this
software cannot be installed on this computer.'"
I have one source that says it should work and one
that says it does, although a third says the installer will not
work.
As for the Power Mac G3, it does require Mac OS 8 or
later.
Dan
OS 9 on a USB Memory Stick
From Jonas, following up on Running
Mac OS 9 from a USB Flash Drive:
Hi Dan,
I
thought I'd share with you how that old Mac ended up. As you see, it
became a nice photo frame, running OS 9 and a screen saver. I
damaged the logic board, so that I couldn't replace the hard drive, but
the USB stick is perfect for this application, since it is completely
silent. Speed doesn't really matter for a photo frame.
I also thought that I'd share the fate of an old Bondi blue iMac (32 MB RAM). I replaced the
hard drive with a 120 GB drive, installed SoundJam MP and Arkaos
Visualizer for visual effects. One thing that I like about it, is that
the program starts playing where it was when the program was shut down.
So I just have to press the power button, and soon it starts
playing.
I also noticed that many Mac
people love new Macs despite their shortcomings, and hate old Macs, no
matter how useful they are. So I let one test person try the jukebox,
to see if it was likable. As you see in the picture, the jukebox seems
to be just fine.
Best regards
Jonas
Jonas,
It's the same way with many things. Some people lust
after new cars, some love vintage cars, and others are content with
reliable transportation that's neither brand new nor old enough to
interest a collector.
Great way to repurpose and old iBook, and a clever use
for an old iMac. :-)
Dan
7200 RPM Drive in 1 GHz iMac G4
From Thomas Hofts:
In your story you said:
"The entire third generation of G4 iMacs is officially
supported by Leopard, and to get the most out of the next version of
OS X, you will want to bring memory to at least 1 GB. The 17"
and 20" iMacs came with 7200 rpm drives, but the 15" may have a slower
drive. If so, replacing it with a 7200 rpm drive will boost overall
performance."
The 15" (1 GHz USB 2.0) does have a factory installed 7200 rpm 80 GB
drive. I just got one off Craigslist and put in 1 GB of memory and
installed Leopard. It is very speedy and works great, although
the heavy graphics programs (Google Earth) are a bit jerky due to the
iMac's poor graphics card.
Thomas,
Thanks for another data point. Apple seems to have
pretty consistently used 7200 rpm 80 GB drives in that era, although
they never promoted the fact.
Dan
Dan Knight has been publishing Low
End Mac since April 1997. Mailbag columns come from email responses to his Mac Musings, Mac Daniel, Online Tech Journal, and other columns on the site.
