I have several things on tap in my mind. From the Sonic and Excite Truck reviews for Gamenikki, telling Gabe Newell and Valve software that they need to get to Linux ASAP, and while figuring out how to tell people that my TV went south on me... oh wait, I already did that on the guide site...
Right now though I wanted to talk about food. I've gotten real used to eating Kroger Mac'n'Cheese since it, Butter, and milk are relatively cheap. While this isn't exactly Cooking with Stacy Vulture, here's how I get my Mac'n'Cheese to turn out nicely most of the time.
On average the Kroger brand Mac'n'Cheese requires about half a stick of butter, or half a cup of butter. Spread over two or three meals, the amount really isn't so bad. Personally though, any stick margarine will do, so feel free to get the "ultra healthy although it really isn't stuff" if you want to.
Start the Mac'n'Cheese cooking as listed on the boxes. 1 and 3/4's cup water and the Macaroni itself. Put it in the Microwave for 6 minutes. At 6 minutes, pull the Macaroni out and stir.
Put the Macaroni back in and set the timer again for six minutes. Now it's time to prepare the butter.
Take your half stick of butter and cut it 8 parts, sorta like this :: |1 |2 |3 |4 |5 |6 |7 |8 |
If the butter is frozen, stop the microwave with about 1:30-1:35 left on the timer.
If the butter is not frozen, stop the Microwave with about 1:10-1:15 left on the timer.
Set the butter in a circle around the top of the Macaroni with one or two pieces in the middle (depends on the size of the bowl).
Let the Microwave complete out it's time.
Take the Macaroni out, stir the bowl.
Now add the powder and the Milk.
Stir again.
The idea is that the butter is both melted over the Macaroni, and is also absorbed by the Macaroni as well. This should make the Macaroni Fluffier and more moist. This also assures that most of the Macaroni gets some butter on it, which helps with the Cheese powder obtaining a more even coating over the Macaroni.
While this will not completely remove the powdered taste associated with cheap Mac'N'Cheese, it should make the meal a little bit more consistent.
Friday, March 16, 2007
Sunday, March 04, 2007
Call Center : crunching some numbers
Alternate Title : Tech Support with an Axe to Grind
Way back in October last year I ran a post about McAfee, Norton, and Microsoft's tift over Vista Security. I followed that up with an expanded article containing the original content, but filling in the holes and gaps. This post is built in somewhat the same manner. Silly Ole Bear ran a post on MepisLovers about a Script Reader from his local ISP. Rather than just cold dumping the post into Blogger, like the Operating System Security thread, this is going to be a bit of a remix, threshing out points within the posts I made.
The Setup
SilverBear started what would become the thread at this post:
From the other side of the spectrum (the support side), that can be a nightmare. The first part of any troubleshooting I would do with a customer who couldn't connect is an Ipconfig, which needs the DOS box to open up. Many Original Equipment Manufactures (OEM's) like Dell, HP, or Gateway, would remove the MSDOS, DOS, or RUN lines from the Windows Start menu. It was not uncommon either to find a Windows Xp or Windows 2000 machine modified to crash out either cmd.exe, or command.exe, most often by limiting usage rights to one of the executable file names.
Under Windows XP it also was not uncommon for many users to have the Control Panel's category view set to "Expand" through the Start Menu. The result to the end user is that their accounts could be locked out of tools needed to troubleshoot their hardware or software problems, with no easy recovery method, unless the tech on the line knew how to navigate through the Start Menu Properties options by heart.
Another common change is that the Address Bar is removed from the C:\ drive Internet Explorer View, and is locked. This is a large problem when the customer only has Internet Explorer for a browser, and IE is hijacked. Knowing how to get the Address Bar under the File Browser view is useful, and may re-enable temporary access.
A lot of Windows users go on and on about how the Windows "Desktop" is unified, about how it's always "the same," and so forth. Bull Manure. There is a difference between "Customizable" and "Driving you bonkers trying to unlock stuff."
However, SilverBear is correct in that the techs are reading from a script. When I left Sitel one of the complaints I leveled against Sitel, Cox Communications, and Suddenlink Communications, is that tech support wasn't tech support. "Fixing" the problem on a call, correctly diagnosing the problem, or even determining who the customer could contact or go to for assistance, was less than 10% of the quality grade. Following the "Script" to the letter counted for far more of the "quality grade." If you didn't solve the problem at all, even if you didn't know what the problem was, you could still get a 90% plus on a quality grading. From my perspective, asking Quality Representatives what I should have done, or could have done, or what I should do on a call met with blank stares. QA personal were not interested in the customer's problem, or how the customers quality of service was presented. All QA expressed interest in was following the script.
Speaking for myself, I came from the school of training where if you were tech support, you were required to Duplicate, Replicate, and Simulate every single bloody problem the customer could have. And you, personally, had to figure out how to get out of it. If a client could bring up a C++ debugging error while running City Of Heroes under Cedega, it was your job to figure out how that error was produced to begin with, then figure out what steps needed to be taken to resolve the problem.
From my viewpoint, I consider what Sitel is/was doing to be dead wrong, and that viewpoint was one of the influences that affected my own decision to leave. The behavioral pattern is not limited to Sitel, Cox, and Suddenlink Communications. There are several other Internet providers, Computer Manufacturers, and Software Vendors who feel that Tech Support is best serviced by people reading from scripts with no practical computing experience, nor any practical training for support. The good news is, since they (the vendors) likely will never learn, that increases my chance of earning a paycheck providing the support that they (the vendors) are not willing to provide.
Is this Cost Effective?
SilverBear responded again to one of the points, and asked a question that I ducked in the thread (mainly because I'm pretty sure my first response was going to drive readers to tears)
Unfortunately, the practice is not cost effective, not by any stretch of any imagination, to have 80% of the problems covered by people reading from a script.
The Sitel Break Down
Back in 2003 and 2004 our Sitel (Sitel Augusta), was reported to be one of the highest earning Sitel Units. According to internal reports, this was supposedly entirely from the "Cox Project." Some of the terminology included in the reports were things like "first call resolution" or "Correct Identification of Issues" Things were so good that Cox Communications had signed an unprecedented time of service contract. When I started at Sitel on the Cox Project we had something else nobody in Sitel had. We had Job Security. We knew that 5 years down the line we were still going to be getting Cox Communications Paychecks. We were not just the best performing Sitel, we were the best performing High Speed Internet Support in the business. Thanks to technicians at Sitel Augusta, Cox Communications was getting praised for it's excellent support and knowledgeable technicians.
During 2005-2006, the reports changed as the "technicians" left. As I saw it, our Upper Management didn't just waffle, the upper management completely lost it. One of the Senior Managers told me directly that Sitel's goal was to have Sitel Augusta become the Premier Video support center for Cox Communications. Now, understand that the majority of people working under the Cox Project had answered ads looking for High Speed Internet and Computer Service Technicians. We were not Video Technicians. Most of the training that we had personally received on video consisted of "Send a hit / Roll a truck."
Okay, fine. I do know the difference between a Composite, Component, Svideo, DVI, HDMI, and DisplayPort plug. I know how to re-wire a Sun Microsystems work station monitor to use a DSUB plugin. Attempting to explain the difference to a customer over the phone, who can't see what they are doing is hard. I'm not saying that I was not capable of supporting Video Calls...
I'm saying that is not what I was hired to do. That is not what we were official trained to do.
As I saw it, the Sitel Management chased after "small job" after "small job." Remote Dial Access Support, Voice over IP support, Video on Demand Support, Billing, and so on. Our management didn't have a clue what it wanted, or why it wanted it, and the result showed. The technicians who had only a year or two before been patting themselves on the back, were leaving. Call Volume Queues climbed as employees bailed ship. When I left we were doing so badly that our contract was sold to SuddenLink communications. Our job security had vaporized because some Accountant had decided to be cost effective instead of Job Effective. Whoever was running the show apparently decided that it would be better to have people sitting in chairs reading from scripts, than properly training technicians to answer calls and fix problems.
There are several fundamental problems with the "Script" system that make it a money loser, and ultimately cost ineffective.
Problem #1 with Script System: Consumer Interaction
The first is consumer interaction, or how many calls it takes to solve a problem. Each support call is supposed to take about 10 minutes, presumably accounting for everything that could go wrong during the call. If the employee taking the call is reading from a script and has no troubleshooting experience, nor any training on how to proceed with troubleshooting, there are three potential scenarios.
The practical result is that a customer can call back 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, or more times. Presuming 10 minutes per call, the employees are now being paid to troubleshoot the same problem multiple times. If a customer has to call back 4 times in one day, there is now a total of 40 minutes spent on what was budgeted to be a 10 minute solution.
From the customers perspective, the result is frustrating. Their opinion of the company is worsened, and there is an increased chance that the customer will take his business elsewhere.
Problem #2 with Script System: Call Volume
The second fundamental problem is Call Volume, or the number of calls that are taken in a day. Call Volume directly relates to Consumer Interaction. Let us say that 20% of the calls are now callbacks. A Customer has to call in twice for the same problem. The number of calls being taken for problems has now been artificially inflated.
Lets extrapolate the effect of the call backs out.
We have 10 Employees who are expected to take 6 calls an hour, at 10 minutes per call. That is 60 problems in one hour. If 20% of these problems are call-backs, the number of calls is increased to 72 per hour. Now, if all the Employees can handle is 60 calls each hour, where are these extra 12 calls going to go? What happens in the next hour when you have another 12 call-backs, which increases the number to 24 call-backs.
The problem keeps stacking exponentially. Now you have a queue stacking. The only thing you can do is continue to take calls until no more people are calling (clearing the queue). The people in queue are now having to wait on hold.
What does that do to the average consumer? Haven't we all seen the comics about having to wait on hold? Haven't some of us done that? Trust me, getting blasted by somebody whose waited for over 2 hours with Cox Communications hold music ain't fun.
Financially, as an Employer, running a tech support crew that is not tech support poses a huge financial burden. Even with a "hoped" for 20% callback rate or "higher problem" rate, a script based staff that focus's on soft skills and not troubleshooting skills will be spending more time "on the phone" having to re-take problems they do not know the answers to. From the customers side they get the impression the technical support is useless, and then start bad mouthing the company, that whole "word of mouth" thing.
The Number Crunching
From my perspective, having been both a caller, and a technician, the Accountants in charge of funding are extremely short sighted. To an accountant it makes more sense to higher 192 Employees with no Technical experience and training, and have them take calls at 6 calls per hour, 10 minutes per call, and only pay them $8 an hour for 40 hours each week. Figuring that they would work in 3 shifts with 8 hours per shift, there would be a maximum of 64 employees taking calls at any one time. (as 40 hours with 8 hour shifts only accounts for 5 days, not 7).
Number Crunching :: The Cost Effective Approach
64*6 = 384 :: So about 384 calls each hour. Figuring a constant call volume over 24 hours, the daily volume should be 9216 calls.
So, 192 people * 8 dollars = $1536 :: $1536 dollars * 40 hours = $61440 :
The payroll would run $61440 for each employee to work 40 hours a week. $61440 / 5 days = $12288.
The expenditure figuring a 5 day work week would be $12288. $12288 / 9216 ~ $1.33 :: so each call is worth about $1.33
Now, lets screw the numbers all up. Lets say that 20% of the 9216 daily callers have to call back in. That is about 1843 (1843.2) extra calls coming back in.
If the company that is paying for the calls pays for the extra 1843 calls, they'll pay $1.33 per call. That would be about $2451.20 extra from the company, per day. Multiply that times 5, and the additional 5 day work week cost is about $12256.
If the contractor taking the calls takes the hit out of their own pocket for the call backs, say, they pay time and half to handle the calls... lets run those numbers.
8 / 2 = 4 :: 8+4 = 12. So, $12 per hour. 1843 calls / 24 hours ~ 77 calls an hour. Figuring 6 calls per person : 77 / 6 ~ 12.83~.
Lets round it up to 13 people. You would need 13 people each hour to handle the extra call flow. 13 people * $12 = $156
$156 * 24 = $3744 : The payroll now needs to account for an additional $3744 per day in order to pay the overtime workers to handle calls.
$3744 * 5 days = $18720 : For a 5 day work week, handling the extra calls would cost the contractor $18720 to pay the employees.
If the Owning company pays up their amount, the contractor would have this : $18720- $12256 = $6464
$6464 dollars per week that has to come from somewhere.
******************
Number Crunching :: The Technician Approach
So, lets take the same numbers and give them tech support training. 192 people, but because of their skills they are going to get paid $10 an hour in order to take calls.
So, 192 people * 10 dollars = $1920 :: $1920 dollars * 40 hours = $76800 :
The payroll would run $76800 for each employee to work 40 hours a week. $76800 / 5 days = $15360.
The expenditure figuring a 5 day work week would be $15360. $15360 / 9216 = $1.66~ :: so each call is worth about $1.66 dollars
Now, lets screw the numbers all up. Lets say that 5% of the 9216 daily callers have to call back in. That is about 461 (460.8) extra calls coming back in.
If the company that is paying for the calls pays for the extra 461 calls, they'll pay $1.66 per call. That would be about $765 extra from the Company, per day. Multiply that times 5, and the additional 5 day work week cost is about $3826.
If the contractor taking the calls takes the hit out of their own pocket for the call backs, say, they pay time and half to handle the calls... lets run those numbers.
10 / 2 = 5 :: 10+5 = 15. So, $15 per hour. 461 calls / 24 hours ~ 20 (19.2) calls an hour. Figuring 6 calls per person : 20 / 6 ~ 3.3~.
Lets round it up to 4 people. You would need 4 people each hour to handle the extra call flow. 4 people * $15 = $60
$60 * 24 = $1440 : The payroll now needs to account for an additional $1440 per day in order to pay the overtime workers to handle calls.
$1440 * 5 days = $7200 : For a 5 day work week, handling the extra calls would cost the contractor $7200 to pay the employees.
If the Owning company pays up their amount, the contractor would have this : $7200 - $3826 = $3374
The Analysis
So, overall, using the "cost effective" employees, the Owning Company would pay $61440 + $12256 = $73696
Using Trained Employees and you get this : $76800 + $3826 = $80626
On paper, the cost effective employees do appear to be more cost effective, costing almost $7000 ($6930) less.
However, in the case of the Contractor, hiring the Cost Effective Employees means paying $18720 in order to handle overtime charges. In the case of higher Technicians, the overtime charges are only $7200, less than half.
Okay, so why 192 people. Why $8 an hour and $10 an hour?
The 192 is easiest to explain. I originally started running these numbers based on a $12 an hour paycheck, which is what I was earning when I left Sitel. 12*16=192, which was easier math to keep track of. I went with $8 and $10 because I started at $8, and those numbers should be about average for today. The final result shows just how close the costs can be.
The question that needs to be asked is this: Is it really worth it? Is it really worth saving $7000 to hire non-technicians to handle technical calls?
In the case of the trained technicians, you error on the side of "worst case" scenario. It is presumed that only 5 percent of the callers need to call back. Realistically speaking, 99% of the calls received in HSI or Computer support are 2 minute quick jobs, things like "Plug the Power Cord" in.
In the case of the "cost effective employees" you presume only a minor 20% call back ratio. That number, while pulled from SilverBears post, errors significantly under the call back ratio I expererienced. Take it from somebody who worked in tech support with the "Cost effective method". It was not uncommon when I took a call for there to be 6 or 7 entries already logged into the database for that day. Multiple times when I had the customer explain to me what was going on, I knew exactly whose login I would find in their account. It was not a joke for those of us technicians in Sitel that other call centers did not have a bloody clue what was being told to the customer. When I left Sitel the callback ratio from other Call Centers was somewhere around 40-45%. Almost 1 out of every 2 callers would have to call back in for assistance.
Okay, fine. I am just one tech. I didn't talk to everybody. I did not handle all the calls. I did not see everything. All I knew is that if I took 70 calls in one night, more than 30 would be from customers calling back in. I filed several emails to our training staff and management to please get a hold of the other call centers and get their acts straightened out.
I personally wrote Training Documentation and user manuals for Cox Communications Tier 1 HSI, and sent the data to our own Trainer, to San Diego, to Atlanta, to Tier2-HRD, to CTC, to Sykes, to Texas, to everywhere I could, because I was fed up with Script Kiddies screwing around with clients.
The Breaking Point : Further Calculations on Cost Effective Compounding
I reached my breaking point after 3 years.
At what point do the consumers break though. With the cost effective employees, 1843 people could be expected to call back in with problems. What happens if they don't get their problem resolved on their second call back? What happens if the customer has to call back 3rd, or 4th time? Lets keep the 20% ratio.
20% of 1843 people call back in for a 3rd call. That is about 369 (368.6) consumers calling back.
20% of 369 call back for a 4th time. Now we have about 74 more calls (73.8).
9216 calls + 1843 calls + 369 calls + 74 calls = 11502 calls.
At $1.33 per call, the owning company is looking at a charge of $15296.66
The contractor now has to account for the additional overtime to handle these call backs.
369 calls / 24 hours ~15 calls an hour (15.375). 15 calls an hour / 6 calls per person ~ 2.5 people
So, the client now needs an additional 3 people each hour, to handle the 3rd call backs.
That's a total of 13 + 3 = 16 people per hour to handle the call backs.
73 calls / 24 hours ~ 3 calls an hour (3.08). 3 calls an hour / 6 calls per person ~ .5
So, finally on the 4th call back, again presuming 20% ratio, do we reach a point where The number of people already accounted for will be present to handle the calls.
So, 16 people at $12 an hour = $192 per hour. $192 * 24 = $4608 per day.
$4608 * 5 = $23040
$23040 is the total amount of money that needs to be set aside for the "cost effective" call center to pay the overtime for staff to stay and take the calls.
******************
The Breaking Point : Further Calculations on Technician Compounding
Now lets run the same call backs with our Technicians.
5% of 461 people call back in for a 3rd call. That is about 23 (23.05) consumers calling back.
5% of 23 call back for a 4th time. Now we have about 1 more call (1.15).
9216 calls + 461 calls + 23 calls + 1 call = 9701 calls.
At $1.66 per call, the owning company is looking at a charge of $16103.66
The contractor now has to account for the additional overtime to handle these call backs.
23 calls / 24 hours ~1 calls an hour (0.96). 1 call an hour / 6 calls per person ~ .2 (0.16).
On the First go around we had a needed number of about ~3.3 people to handle the calls, and it was rounded up to 4. With that round up, we've already accounted for 5% of the call backs on 5% of the original calls.
The cost to the contractor doesn't change. Paying $10 per hour to trained techs with time and half over time, and accounting for a 5% callback repetition, the contractor is covered with just 4 techs working an hour of overtime each hour.
****
The Final Crunch
The Cost Effective Business model winds up with a charge of $61440 + $23040 = $84480
The Technician Model is still at $80626
Suddenly, the Cost Effective Model... isn't. It is MORE EXPENSIVE.
Now, I appearently am dead wrong about this, as the Accountants running Tech Call centers don't consider it worth the cost to pay out for Technical Staff.
In my example, would it not be better just to pay that about $7000 out and get technicians that get things done on the first try, and not risk having to hire extra staff or pay overtime? According to an Accountant, I would be wrong.
Oh wait... I wasn't wrong. Cox Communications Sold their contract because Sitel went the cost effective route, and it failed.
The problem is, Accountants do not thing about things like "One Call Resolution." It is my opinion that such concepts are beyond their grasp. But even when playing the numbers game, the Cost Effective method just isn't viable, period.
The Public Explanation
LnoyBoy brought up the public explanation given for going the cost effective route:
Then there are/were the people who call in during an outage, while a "Your Area Is In an Outage" message plays over the phone system, and ask "Is there an outage?"
The real problem that Sitel ran into is that the script readers didn't know when to stop reading the script and start diagnosing the problem.
E.g. : Somebody calls in with a slow or Intermittent connection. First thing you have the customer do is run a couple of ping tests. Get a local server, get a server some distance away (like Google or Yahoo), then grab a server across the ocean (I went for theregister.co.uk). You look for the overall ping response and the variance in ping speeds. You check the modem's levels, make sure that the Signal to Noise ratio is within range. If anything at all looks wrong with the signals, you rolled a truck and got a line tech out there.
The problem was for us is that a lot of script readers were not even opening up the modem to check on the levels. Several would simply feed the customer some line of manure about their computer, advise taking the computer to a repair tech, and end the call. Others would just simple send the Caller right up to Level 2 support. Tier 2 takes one look at the account, sees no troubleshooting, and sends the customer right back down to Tier 1 (front line calls) for Troubleshooting. So, if you have a 10 minute hold time before the customer gets to Tier 1, they spend 10 minutes on the phone calling, 2 minutes talking to the front line rep, however many minutes waiting on Tier 2, then right back into the 10 minute wait time to talk with a Front line tech again. That's... 22 minutes at a minimum, and the customer's problem hasn't been addressed at all.
However, as far as I can tell, accountants are either unable, or unwilling, to see these trends, or account for them. Accountants look at the "bottom" line of how much "has to be paid out" ... not how much "has to be earned."
It is my opinion that one of the reasons why Cox Communications sold many markets to Suddenlink communications at rock bottom prices is because of the Tech Support and Customer Service that the customers were getting. I still remember taking Las Vegas back in 2003 and having upwards of 45 minutes hold times. Northern Virginia? You have a Senator wait 30 minutes, and trust me, your ears will /bleed/.
Customers don't want that, and at some point, they'll draw a line. We worked our tails off to get the call times down and to get things fixed on the first try, because those of us on the front line knew that none of these callers had to call. None of them had to buy our product, or our services. It was entirely voluntarily up to the customer, and if their product was not being delivered, they would take their money elsewhere.
If you are a company, in general terms customers do not have to buy from you. When the customers stop paying for the service, what happens? Was it worth possibly saving under $10,000 on a service contract when customers might cause an overall loss of $75,000,000 (not singling out any now owned Suddenlink market here).
From a Service standpoint, a balance needs to be struck. The techs need to be polite to the callers, but techs still need to be techs. A lot of Accountants running Call Centers just don't get that.
Way back in October last year I ran a post about McAfee, Norton, and Microsoft's tift over Vista Security. I followed that up with an expanded article containing the original content, but filling in the holes and gaps. This post is built in somewhat the same manner. Silly Ole Bear ran a post on MepisLovers about a Script Reader from his local ISP. Rather than just cold dumping the post into Blogger, like the Operating System Security thread, this is going to be a bit of a remix, threshing out points within the posts I made.
The Setup
SilverBear started what would become the thread at this post:
!!!
And no doubt they are starting to get the same uncomfortable feeling that a novice exorcist gets when the demon starts laughing at him halfway through the ritual!
[Just click on the START button, type what I tell you and be GONE!!!! BE GONE!!!! Away with you, foul Customer of Darkness. . . oh crap. . . it isn't working. Maybe if I gargle with the holy water. . . ?]
From the other side of the spectrum (the support side), that can be a nightmare. The first part of any troubleshooting I would do with a customer who couldn't connect is an Ipconfig, which needs the DOS box to open up. Many Original Equipment Manufactures (OEM's) like Dell, HP, or Gateway, would remove the MSDOS, DOS, or RUN lines from the Windows Start menu. It was not uncommon either to find a Windows Xp or Windows 2000 machine modified to crash out either cmd.exe, or command.exe, most often by limiting usage rights to one of the executable file names.
Under Windows XP it also was not uncommon for many users to have the Control Panel's category view set to "Expand" through the Start Menu. The result to the end user is that their accounts could be locked out of tools needed to troubleshoot their hardware or software problems, with no easy recovery method, unless the tech on the line knew how to navigate through the Start Menu Properties options by heart.
Another common change is that the Address Bar is removed from the C:\ drive Internet Explorer View, and is locked. This is a large problem when the customer only has Internet Explorer for a browser, and IE is hijacked. Knowing how to get the Address Bar under the File Browser view is useful, and may re-enable temporary access.
A lot of Windows users go on and on about how the Windows "Desktop" is unified, about how it's always "the same," and so forth. Bull Manure. There is a difference between "Customizable" and "Driving you bonkers trying to unlock stuff."
However, SilverBear is correct in that the techs are reading from a script. When I left Sitel one of the complaints I leveled against Sitel, Cox Communications, and Suddenlink Communications, is that tech support wasn't tech support. "Fixing" the problem on a call, correctly diagnosing the problem, or even determining who the customer could contact or go to for assistance, was less than 10% of the quality grade. Following the "Script" to the letter counted for far more of the "quality grade." If you didn't solve the problem at all, even if you didn't know what the problem was, you could still get a 90% plus on a quality grading. From my perspective, asking Quality Representatives what I should have done, or could have done, or what I should do on a call met with blank stares. QA personal were not interested in the customer's problem, or how the customers quality of service was presented. All QA expressed interest in was following the script.
Speaking for myself, I came from the school of training where if you were tech support, you were required to Duplicate, Replicate, and Simulate every single bloody problem the customer could have. And you, personally, had to figure out how to get out of it. If a client could bring up a C++ debugging error while running City Of Heroes under Cedega, it was your job to figure out how that error was produced to begin with, then figure out what steps needed to be taken to resolve the problem.
From my viewpoint, I consider what Sitel is/was doing to be dead wrong, and that viewpoint was one of the influences that affected my own decision to leave. The behavioral pattern is not limited to Sitel, Cox, and Suddenlink Communications. There are several other Internet providers, Computer Manufacturers, and Software Vendors who feel that Tech Support is best serviced by people reading from scripts with no practical computing experience, nor any practical training for support. The good news is, since they (the vendors) likely will never learn, that increases my chance of earning a paycheck providing the support that they (the vendors) are not willing to provide.
Is this Cost Effective?
SilverBear responded again to one of the points, and asked a question that I ducked in the thread (mainly because I'm pretty sure my first response was going to drive readers to tears)
I've looked at some of the stuff on your site, and it's very revealing to read some of your experience there. Wouldn't you summarize it by saying that it's just more "cost effective" for these companies to hire people who can read scripts that cover-- maybe, what?-- 80% of the problems, than to put techs who they'd have to pay more all the time to cover that small percentage of problems that fall through the cracks in the script ?
Unlike the MS or Mac or Linux choices that are available if one looks, in some areas if you want broadband internet, you get one choice, or if you're lucky, 2. Where I am, it's DSL through our local phone company or dial-up. Period
Fortunately for us, it's a small, locally-owned company that does try to do right by you if you have a problem.
In the village about 4 miles away you also can get RoadRunner through Time-Warner Cable service, as of late 2005.
But what would cause the average big boys to change their approach, absent competition?
Unfortunately, the practice is not cost effective, not by any stretch of any imagination, to have 80% of the problems covered by people reading from a script.
The Sitel Break Down
Back in 2003 and 2004 our Sitel (Sitel Augusta), was reported to be one of the highest earning Sitel Units. According to internal reports, this was supposedly entirely from the "Cox Project." Some of the terminology included in the reports were things like "first call resolution" or "Correct Identification of Issues" Things were so good that Cox Communications had signed an unprecedented time of service contract. When I started at Sitel on the Cox Project we had something else nobody in Sitel had. We had Job Security. We knew that 5 years down the line we were still going to be getting Cox Communications Paychecks. We were not just the best performing Sitel, we were the best performing High Speed Internet Support in the business. Thanks to technicians at Sitel Augusta, Cox Communications was getting praised for it's excellent support and knowledgeable technicians.
During 2005-2006, the reports changed as the "technicians" left. As I saw it, our Upper Management didn't just waffle, the upper management completely lost it. One of the Senior Managers told me directly that Sitel's goal was to have Sitel Augusta become the Premier Video support center for Cox Communications. Now, understand that the majority of people working under the Cox Project had answered ads looking for High Speed Internet and Computer Service Technicians. We were not Video Technicians. Most of the training that we had personally received on video consisted of "Send a hit / Roll a truck."
Okay, fine. I do know the difference between a Composite, Component, Svideo, DVI, HDMI, and DisplayPort plug. I know how to re-wire a Sun Microsystems work station monitor to use a DSUB plugin. Attempting to explain the difference to a customer over the phone, who can't see what they are doing is hard. I'm not saying that I was not capable of supporting Video Calls...
I'm saying that is not what I was hired to do. That is not what we were official trained to do.
As I saw it, the Sitel Management chased after "small job" after "small job." Remote Dial Access Support, Voice over IP support, Video on Demand Support, Billing, and so on. Our management didn't have a clue what it wanted, or why it wanted it, and the result showed. The technicians who had only a year or two before been patting themselves on the back, were leaving. Call Volume Queues climbed as employees bailed ship. When I left we were doing so badly that our contract was sold to SuddenLink communications. Our job security had vaporized because some Accountant had decided to be cost effective instead of Job Effective. Whoever was running the show apparently decided that it would be better to have people sitting in chairs reading from scripts, than properly training technicians to answer calls and fix problems.
There are several fundamental problems with the "Script" system that make it a money loser, and ultimately cost ineffective.
Problem #1 with Script System: Consumer Interaction
The first is consumer interaction, or how many calls it takes to solve a problem. Each support call is supposed to take about 10 minutes, presumably accounting for everything that could go wrong during the call. If the employee taking the call is reading from a script and has no troubleshooting experience, nor any training on how to proceed with troubleshooting, there are three potential scenarios.
- The first is that the Employee will attempt to fix the problem. It is possible for the Employee to waste valuable minutes of the call tracking down various issues in the manual or from a manager. This interrupts the manager's time on their own tasks, and potentially increases the length of time till the call is completed.
- The second is that the Employee will not fix the problem, or give the customer inaccurate information about the problem, resulting in the customer having to call back.
- The third is that the Employee will give the customer bad information, potentially damaging the product being called about.
The practical result is that a customer can call back 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, or more times. Presuming 10 minutes per call, the employees are now being paid to troubleshoot the same problem multiple times. If a customer has to call back 4 times in one day, there is now a total of 40 minutes spent on what was budgeted to be a 10 minute solution.
From the customers perspective, the result is frustrating. Their opinion of the company is worsened, and there is an increased chance that the customer will take his business elsewhere.
Problem #2 with Script System: Call Volume
The second fundamental problem is Call Volume, or the number of calls that are taken in a day. Call Volume directly relates to Consumer Interaction. Let us say that 20% of the calls are now callbacks. A Customer has to call in twice for the same problem. The number of calls being taken for problems has now been artificially inflated.
Lets extrapolate the effect of the call backs out.
We have 10 Employees who are expected to take 6 calls an hour, at 10 minutes per call. That is 60 problems in one hour. If 20% of these problems are call-backs, the number of calls is increased to 72 per hour. Now, if all the Employees can handle is 60 calls each hour, where are these extra 12 calls going to go? What happens in the next hour when you have another 12 call-backs, which increases the number to 24 call-backs.
The problem keeps stacking exponentially. Now you have a queue stacking. The only thing you can do is continue to take calls until no more people are calling (clearing the queue). The people in queue are now having to wait on hold.
What does that do to the average consumer? Haven't we all seen the comics about having to wait on hold? Haven't some of us done that? Trust me, getting blasted by somebody whose waited for over 2 hours with Cox Communications hold music ain't fun.
Financially, as an Employer, running a tech support crew that is not tech support poses a huge financial burden. Even with a "hoped" for 20% callback rate or "higher problem" rate, a script based staff that focus's on soft skills and not troubleshooting skills will be spending more time "on the phone" having to re-take problems they do not know the answers to. From the customers side they get the impression the technical support is useless, and then start bad mouthing the company, that whole "word of mouth" thing.
The Number Crunching
From my perspective, having been both a caller, and a technician, the Accountants in charge of funding are extremely short sighted. To an accountant it makes more sense to higher 192 Employees with no Technical experience and training, and have them take calls at 6 calls per hour, 10 minutes per call, and only pay them $8 an hour for 40 hours each week. Figuring that they would work in 3 shifts with 8 hours per shift, there would be a maximum of 64 employees taking calls at any one time. (as 40 hours with 8 hour shifts only accounts for 5 days, not 7).
Number Crunching :: The Cost Effective Approach
64*6 = 384 :: So about 384 calls each hour. Figuring a constant call volume over 24 hours, the daily volume should be 9216 calls.
So, 192 people * 8 dollars = $1536 :: $1536 dollars * 40 hours = $61440 :
The payroll would run $61440 for each employee to work 40 hours a week. $61440 / 5 days = $12288.
The expenditure figuring a 5 day work week would be $12288. $12288 / 9216 ~ $1.33 :: so each call is worth about $1.33
Now, lets screw the numbers all up. Lets say that 20% of the 9216 daily callers have to call back in. That is about 1843 (1843.2) extra calls coming back in.
If the company that is paying for the calls pays for the extra 1843 calls, they'll pay $1.33 per call. That would be about $2451.20 extra from the company, per day. Multiply that times 5, and the additional 5 day work week cost is about $12256.
If the contractor taking the calls takes the hit out of their own pocket for the call backs, say, they pay time and half to handle the calls... lets run those numbers.
8 / 2 = 4 :: 8+4 = 12. So, $12 per hour. 1843 calls / 24 hours ~ 77 calls an hour. Figuring 6 calls per person : 77 / 6 ~ 12.83~.
Lets round it up to 13 people. You would need 13 people each hour to handle the extra call flow. 13 people * $12 = $156
$156 * 24 = $3744 : The payroll now needs to account for an additional $3744 per day in order to pay the overtime workers to handle calls.
$3744 * 5 days = $18720 : For a 5 day work week, handling the extra calls would cost the contractor $18720 to pay the employees.
If the Owning company pays up their amount, the contractor would have this : $18720- $12256 = $6464
$6464 dollars per week that has to come from somewhere.
******************
Number Crunching :: The Technician Approach
So, lets take the same numbers and give them tech support training. 192 people, but because of their skills they are going to get paid $10 an hour in order to take calls.
So, 192 people * 10 dollars = $1920 :: $1920 dollars * 40 hours = $76800 :
The payroll would run $76800 for each employee to work 40 hours a week. $76800 / 5 days = $15360.
The expenditure figuring a 5 day work week would be $15360. $15360 / 9216 = $1.66~ :: so each call is worth about $1.66 dollars
Now, lets screw the numbers all up. Lets say that 5% of the 9216 daily callers have to call back in. That is about 461 (460.8) extra calls coming back in.
If the company that is paying for the calls pays for the extra 461 calls, they'll pay $1.66 per call. That would be about $765 extra from the Company, per day. Multiply that times 5, and the additional 5 day work week cost is about $3826.
If the contractor taking the calls takes the hit out of their own pocket for the call backs, say, they pay time and half to handle the calls... lets run those numbers.
10 / 2 = 5 :: 10+5 = 15. So, $15 per hour. 461 calls / 24 hours ~ 20 (19.2) calls an hour. Figuring 6 calls per person : 20 / 6 ~ 3.3~.
Lets round it up to 4 people. You would need 4 people each hour to handle the extra call flow. 4 people * $15 = $60
$60 * 24 = $1440 : The payroll now needs to account for an additional $1440 per day in order to pay the overtime workers to handle calls.
$1440 * 5 days = $7200 : For a 5 day work week, handling the extra calls would cost the contractor $7200 to pay the employees.
If the Owning company pays up their amount, the contractor would have this : $7200 - $3826 = $3374
The Analysis
So, overall, using the "cost effective" employees, the Owning Company would pay $61440 + $12256 = $73696
Using Trained Employees and you get this : $76800 + $3826 = $80626
On paper, the cost effective employees do appear to be more cost effective, costing almost $7000 ($6930) less.
However, in the case of the Contractor, hiring the Cost Effective Employees means paying $18720 in order to handle overtime charges. In the case of higher Technicians, the overtime charges are only $7200, less than half.
Okay, so why 192 people. Why $8 an hour and $10 an hour?
The 192 is easiest to explain. I originally started running these numbers based on a $12 an hour paycheck, which is what I was earning when I left Sitel. 12*16=192, which was easier math to keep track of. I went with $8 and $10 because I started at $8, and those numbers should be about average for today. The final result shows just how close the costs can be.
The question that needs to be asked is this: Is it really worth it? Is it really worth saving $7000 to hire non-technicians to handle technical calls?
In the case of the trained technicians, you error on the side of "worst case" scenario. It is presumed that only 5 percent of the callers need to call back. Realistically speaking, 99% of the calls received in HSI or Computer support are 2 minute quick jobs, things like "Plug the Power Cord" in.
In the case of the "cost effective employees" you presume only a minor 20% call back ratio. That number, while pulled from SilverBears post, errors significantly under the call back ratio I expererienced. Take it from somebody who worked in tech support with the "Cost effective method". It was not uncommon when I took a call for there to be 6 or 7 entries already logged into the database for that day. Multiple times when I had the customer explain to me what was going on, I knew exactly whose login I would find in their account. It was not a joke for those of us technicians in Sitel that other call centers did not have a bloody clue what was being told to the customer. When I left Sitel the callback ratio from other Call Centers was somewhere around 40-45%. Almost 1 out of every 2 callers would have to call back in for assistance.
Okay, fine. I am just one tech. I didn't talk to everybody. I did not handle all the calls. I did not see everything. All I knew is that if I took 70 calls in one night, more than 30 would be from customers calling back in. I filed several emails to our training staff and management to please get a hold of the other call centers and get their acts straightened out.
I personally wrote Training Documentation and user manuals for Cox Communications Tier 1 HSI, and sent the data to our own Trainer, to San Diego, to Atlanta, to Tier2-HRD, to CTC, to Sykes, to Texas, to everywhere I could, because I was fed up with Script Kiddies screwing around with clients.
The Breaking Point : Further Calculations on Cost Effective Compounding
I reached my breaking point after 3 years.
At what point do the consumers break though. With the cost effective employees, 1843 people could be expected to call back in with problems. What happens if they don't get their problem resolved on their second call back? What happens if the customer has to call back 3rd, or 4th time? Lets keep the 20% ratio.
20% of 1843 people call back in for a 3rd call. That is about 369 (368.6) consumers calling back.
20% of 369 call back for a 4th time. Now we have about 74 more calls (73.8).
9216 calls + 1843 calls + 369 calls + 74 calls = 11502 calls.
At $1.33 per call, the owning company is looking at a charge of $15296.66
The contractor now has to account for the additional overtime to handle these call backs.
369 calls / 24 hours ~15 calls an hour (15.375). 15 calls an hour / 6 calls per person ~ 2.5 people
So, the client now needs an additional 3 people each hour, to handle the 3rd call backs.
That's a total of 13 + 3 = 16 people per hour to handle the call backs.
73 calls / 24 hours ~ 3 calls an hour (3.08). 3 calls an hour / 6 calls per person ~ .5
So, finally on the 4th call back, again presuming 20% ratio, do we reach a point where The number of people already accounted for will be present to handle the calls.
So, 16 people at $12 an hour = $192 per hour. $192 * 24 = $4608 per day.
$4608 * 5 = $23040
$23040 is the total amount of money that needs to be set aside for the "cost effective" call center to pay the overtime for staff to stay and take the calls.
******************
The Breaking Point : Further Calculations on Technician Compounding
Now lets run the same call backs with our Technicians.
5% of 461 people call back in for a 3rd call. That is about 23 (23.05) consumers calling back.
5% of 23 call back for a 4th time. Now we have about 1 more call (1.15).
9216 calls + 461 calls + 23 calls + 1 call = 9701 calls.
At $1.66 per call, the owning company is looking at a charge of $16103.66
The contractor now has to account for the additional overtime to handle these call backs.
23 calls / 24 hours ~1 calls an hour (0.96). 1 call an hour / 6 calls per person ~ .2 (0.16).
On the First go around we had a needed number of about ~3.3 people to handle the calls, and it was rounded up to 4. With that round up, we've already accounted for 5% of the call backs on 5% of the original calls.
The cost to the contractor doesn't change. Paying $10 per hour to trained techs with time and half over time, and accounting for a 5% callback repetition, the contractor is covered with just 4 techs working an hour of overtime each hour.
****
The Final Crunch
The Cost Effective Business model winds up with a charge of $61440 + $23040 = $84480
The Technician Model is still at $80626
Suddenly, the Cost Effective Model... isn't. It is MORE EXPENSIVE.
Now, I appearently am dead wrong about this, as the Accountants running Tech Call centers don't consider it worth the cost to pay out for Technical Staff.
In my example, would it not be better just to pay that about $7000 out and get technicians that get things done on the first try, and not risk having to hire extra staff or pay overtime? According to an Accountant, I would be wrong.
Oh wait... I wasn't wrong. Cox Communications Sold their contract because Sitel went the cost effective route, and it failed.
The problem is, Accountants do not thing about things like "One Call Resolution." It is my opinion that such concepts are beyond their grasp. But even when playing the numbers game, the Cost Effective method just isn't viable, period.
The Public Explanation
LnoyBoy brought up the public explanation given for going the cost effective route:
Really interesting post.That... really isn't a line of bull. Trust me, if you ever get bored enough to read my old Live Journal ( saist.livejournal.com ), I had to deal with thousands of callers each year that pulled a cable loose, kicked the power cord out, set the modem in standby, or couldn't identify the power cord.
I guess I'd been fed a line of bull. I was told that the script readers were in place
to take up the "are your cables loose?", and "is it plugged in?" type questions, so
the real techs wouldn't have to deal with them.
Then there are/were the people who call in during an outage, while a "Your Area Is In an Outage" message plays over the phone system, and ask "Is there an outage?"
The real problem that Sitel ran into is that the script readers didn't know when to stop reading the script and start diagnosing the problem.
E.g. : Somebody calls in with a slow or Intermittent connection. First thing you have the customer do is run a couple of ping tests. Get a local server, get a server some distance away (like Google or Yahoo), then grab a server across the ocean (I went for theregister.co.uk). You look for the overall ping response and the variance in ping speeds. You check the modem's levels, make sure that the Signal to Noise ratio is within range. If anything at all looks wrong with the signals, you rolled a truck and got a line tech out there.
The problem was for us is that a lot of script readers were not even opening up the modem to check on the levels. Several would simply feed the customer some line of manure about their computer, advise taking the computer to a repair tech, and end the call. Others would just simple send the Caller right up to Level 2 support. Tier 2 takes one look at the account, sees no troubleshooting, and sends the customer right back down to Tier 1 (front line calls) for Troubleshooting. So, if you have a 10 minute hold time before the customer gets to Tier 1, they spend 10 minutes on the phone calling, 2 minutes talking to the front line rep, however many minutes waiting on Tier 2, then right back into the 10 minute wait time to talk with a Front line tech again. That's... 22 minutes at a minimum, and the customer's problem hasn't been addressed at all.
However, as far as I can tell, accountants are either unable, or unwilling, to see these trends, or account for them. Accountants look at the "bottom" line of how much "has to be paid out" ... not how much "has to be earned."
It is my opinion that one of the reasons why Cox Communications sold many markets to Suddenlink communications at rock bottom prices is because of the Tech Support and Customer Service that the customers were getting. I still remember taking Las Vegas back in 2003 and having upwards of 45 minutes hold times. Northern Virginia? You have a Senator wait 30 minutes, and trust me, your ears will /bleed/.
Customers don't want that, and at some point, they'll draw a line. We worked our tails off to get the call times down and to get things fixed on the first try, because those of us on the front line knew that none of these callers had to call. None of them had to buy our product, or our services. It was entirely voluntarily up to the customer, and if their product was not being delivered, they would take their money elsewhere.
If you are a company, in general terms customers do not have to buy from you. When the customers stop paying for the service, what happens? Was it worth possibly saving under $10,000 on a service contract when customers might cause an overall loss of $75,000,000 (not singling out any now owned Suddenlink market here).
From a Service standpoint, a balance needs to be struck. The techs need to be polite to the callers, but techs still need to be techs. A lot of Accountants running Call Centers just don't get that.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Sony is making my head hurt
Another one that I'm not going to bother linking at all. Earlier this morning I saw on several news sites statements to the effect that Sony says help is on the way for Playstation3 "Shortages." Sony intends to "fix" the shortages by May of this year.
Now, I wrote this post over on Gamenikki.com ( http://www.gamenikki.com/g3/inTheNews/Jason.php?id=16 ) when this type of news popped up through New York times. I really am beginning to wonder if Sony is even on the same planet as us.
What shortages could Sony possibly be talking about? The Playstation3 isn't selling. It's too expensive, offers too little, and now the hardware based backwards compatibility with Playstation2 is being removed in favor of a software solution... that DOES NOT WORK.
I started writing a business plan to pull Sony out of the whole they dug themselves into, but I've stopped. I honestly do not want to help Sony at all anymore. As I said in the market research ( http://zerias.blogspot.com/2007/01/good-bye-sony-ps3-market-research.html ), this is the real Sony Corporation. And I, for one, am not sure it is worth saving anymore.
Now, I wrote this post over on Gamenikki.com ( http://www.gamenikki.com/g3/inTheNews/Jason.php?id=16 ) when this type of news popped up through New York times. I really am beginning to wonder if Sony is even on the same planet as us.
What shortages could Sony possibly be talking about? The Playstation3 isn't selling. It's too expensive, offers too little, and now the hardware based backwards compatibility with Playstation2 is being removed in favor of a software solution... that DOES NOT WORK.
I started writing a business plan to pull Sony out of the whole they dug themselves into, but I've stopped. I honestly do not want to help Sony at all anymore. As I said in the market research ( http://zerias.blogspot.com/2007/01/good-bye-sony-ps3-market-research.html ), this is the real Sony Corporation. And I, for one, am not sure it is worth saving anymore.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Showusthecode.com
I've been a little heavy on the Microsoft train the past several posts, but, here we go again with yet another post about everybody's favorite federally convicted monopoly.
I do not believe it is considered a secret that new SCO was a sock puppet of Microsoft's bidding. I am fairly confident that the money trail of license purchases, Baystar executives, and memo's paints the picture that Microsoft saw to new SCO's funding earlier in the campaign which claimed that Linux was using Pure Unix code given by IBM, which belonged to Old SCO at one point in time.
Almost immediately after the lawsuits were filed the Linux developing communities rose up and challenged new SCO. Their challenge was to show the quoted millions of lines of code that had been copied in whole into the Linux/GNU operating system. new SCO was initially cagey on showing violations of code, which was of course understandable from an investors viewpoint. Had new SCO shown the code that it believed was copied from Pure Unix into Linux/GNU by IBM, then the Open Source development communities would remove the offending code and re-write it. By not showing the code until the trial, new SCO guaranteed that the offending code would still be in place, thus also guaranteeing that there would be a large settlement or punishment in new SCO's favor. From an outsiders viewpoint, this is along the lines of Blackmail. Open Source Developers were willing to talk about removing the offending code, while new SCO was holding the offending code hostage until new SCO got paid. From an investors viewpoint, it was simply business as usual.
However, as time went on, it became clear that new SCO did not have any lines of code. The smoking gun was never shown in the courtroom, and the few examples of code that new SCO demonstrated outside of the courtroom where quickly proven to be shams. One example is listed here : http://lwn.net/Articles/45019/ : new SCO tried to pass off code originally distributed in 1979 and explicitly released under a BSD license in 2002 as an example of copied code. Investors found themselves on the wrong side of a fraudulent case with a sock puppet. There was no smoking gun. There was no code. All new SCO had was a lot of talk.
It is now taken for granted that new SCO has failed in their mission, but the puppeteer still speaks loudly. It is no secret that along with, and behind, new SCO Microsoft was also banging the drum of stolen code, Intellectual Property Theft, and Intellectual Property Misuse. With the Advent of the Novell-Microsoft deal, the drum began to beat louder. Microsoft held the deal up as proof that Linux/GNU was infringing on Microsoft patents and technology.
I. Don't. Think. So. Microsoft.
Now the Open Source Community is leveling the same challenge against Microsoft that was leveled against new SCO back in 2003.
Show Us The Code!
The fact is, if a company does not aggressively protect it's property, be it Intellectual or physical, they stand to lose that property. It is possible for Copyrights and Trademarks to be lost, and for patents to be declared invalid. Microsoft has for years claimed that Linux/GNU infringes on Microsoft's technology. Yet, like new SCO, Microsoft has never shown the code examples where the infringing technology is used. Microsoft has filed no lawsuits, taken nobody to court, filed no warrants for search, no warrants for arrest, and no cases are filed with Law enforcing agencies such as the FBI, US Postal Service, or any state level Investigative units.
Now, how would the US Postal Service fit into the this? Two words:
Mail Fraud.
Let me put it this way. Mark Shuttleworths Canonical ships multiple Ubuntu CD's every week through the US Postal System. Warren Woodford's Mepis distribution is also shipped and sold through the US Postal Service. Let me ask this then: If Linux/GNU is/was using Microsoft property, then would not both Canonical and Mepis be guilty of Mail Fraud? I'm no lawyer, but a cursory glance of the Federal Trade Commissions page on Mail or Telephone Order Merchandise Rule seems to indicate so.
Let me draw the picture as I see it then. Microsoft's continuous assaults against Linux/GNU has had no legal enforcement for several years. By continuing to intimate ( 1.to indicate or make known indirectly; hint; imply; suggest. ) that Linux/GNU violates Microsoft owned technology without taking the steps to address those infringements directly, Microsoft has forfieted any legal right to those technologies.
Now, I'm not sure what the statuette of limitations is on Intellectual Property issues, so I'm not sure if a direct legal forfeiture would stand as Microsoft has as of yet taken no steps to rectify these issues in a legal manner.
However, it is my opinion that if Microsoft does NOT immediately state and make known the infringements, then Microsoft itself is guilty of Mail Fraud.
Think about it. What would be the legal implications if Microsoft has sent the intimations about Linux/GNU using Microsoft technology through the US Postal System. As these claims have not been legally substantiated, but Microsoft is using them to control OEM's and ISV's, then are not the intimations fraudulent? Again, I'm not a lawyer, not by any stretch of anybodies imagination. Maybe I'm looking at this too simply.
Somebody posted in MepisLovers that they didn't understand how exactly Microsoft could be committing mail fraud. While I think it is quite clear what the implications are and how they are arrived at, it looks like I'll have to spell it out.
A more specific example of what Microsoft could have done is this: Lets say that somebody is making a cross platform mail server and they publish the code to SourceForge. Microsoft sends the developer a letter stating that their mail server uses technology from Microsoft Exchange that Microsoft owns. The developer is given the proposed choices of pulling his software, buying a license from Microsoft to use the technology, or being taken to court and sued for using the technology. However, if it is found that Microsoft was not the holder of the technologies, and that say, Qualcomm was the holder of technologies, then Microsoft will have committed fraud in their letter. If the letter was sent through the US Postal Service, then Microsoft would have been guilty of Mail Fraud. Again, this is just an EXAMPLE.
As such, I stand behind the challenge made by at http://showusthecode.com : Microsoft needs to stand up and either legally defend their property, or we need to start declaring any further intimations to be libelous.
From there, we should take the appropriate actions against any news source (be it Associated Press or Reuters) that runs Microsoft's threats without noting that there has been no legal action to protect the technology. It would also be my opinion that at such a point the Open Source Communities should start taking their own appropriate actions and notifying various regulatory authorities and demanding investigations.
That is what I would like to see happen, but I will be the first to admit, I doubt it would.
I do not believe it is considered a secret that new SCO was a sock puppet of Microsoft's bidding. I am fairly confident that the money trail of license purchases, Baystar executives, and memo's paints the picture that Microsoft saw to new SCO's funding earlier in the campaign which claimed that Linux was using Pure Unix code given by IBM, which belonged to Old SCO at one point in time.
Almost immediately after the lawsuits were filed the Linux developing communities rose up and challenged new SCO. Their challenge was to show the quoted millions of lines of code that had been copied in whole into the Linux/GNU operating system. new SCO was initially cagey on showing violations of code, which was of course understandable from an investors viewpoint. Had new SCO shown the code that it believed was copied from Pure Unix into Linux/GNU by IBM, then the Open Source development communities would remove the offending code and re-write it. By not showing the code until the trial, new SCO guaranteed that the offending code would still be in place, thus also guaranteeing that there would be a large settlement or punishment in new SCO's favor. From an outsiders viewpoint, this is along the lines of Blackmail. Open Source Developers were willing to talk about removing the offending code, while new SCO was holding the offending code hostage until new SCO got paid. From an investors viewpoint, it was simply business as usual.
However, as time went on, it became clear that new SCO did not have any lines of code. The smoking gun was never shown in the courtroom, and the few examples of code that new SCO demonstrated outside of the courtroom where quickly proven to be shams. One example is listed here : http://lwn.net/Articles/45019/ : new SCO tried to pass off code originally distributed in 1979 and explicitly released under a BSD license in 2002 as an example of copied code. Investors found themselves on the wrong side of a fraudulent case with a sock puppet. There was no smoking gun. There was no code. All new SCO had was a lot of talk.
It is now taken for granted that new SCO has failed in their mission, but the puppeteer still speaks loudly. It is no secret that along with, and behind, new SCO Microsoft was also banging the drum of stolen code, Intellectual Property Theft, and Intellectual Property Misuse. With the Advent of the Novell-Microsoft deal, the drum began to beat louder. Microsoft held the deal up as proof that Linux/GNU was infringing on Microsoft patents and technology.
I. Don't. Think. So. Microsoft.
Now the Open Source Community is leveling the same challenge against Microsoft that was leveled against new SCO back in 2003.
Show Us The Code!
The fact is, if a company does not aggressively protect it's property, be it Intellectual or physical, they stand to lose that property. It is possible for Copyrights and Trademarks to be lost, and for patents to be declared invalid. Microsoft has for years claimed that Linux/GNU infringes on Microsoft's technology. Yet, like new SCO, Microsoft has never shown the code examples where the infringing technology is used. Microsoft has filed no lawsuits, taken nobody to court, filed no warrants for search, no warrants for arrest, and no cases are filed with Law enforcing agencies such as the FBI, US Postal Service, or any state level Investigative units.
Now, how would the US Postal Service fit into the this? Two words:
Mail Fraud.
Let me put it this way. Mark Shuttleworths Canonical ships multiple Ubuntu CD's every week through the US Postal System. Warren Woodford's Mepis distribution is also shipped and sold through the US Postal Service. Let me ask this then: If Linux/GNU is/was using Microsoft property, then would not both Canonical and Mepis be guilty of Mail Fraud? I'm no lawyer, but a cursory glance of the Federal Trade Commissions page on Mail or Telephone Order Merchandise Rule seems to indicate so.
Let me draw the picture as I see it then. Microsoft's continuous assaults against Linux/GNU has had no legal enforcement for several years. By continuing to intimate ( 1.to indicate or make known indirectly; hint; imply; suggest. ) that Linux/GNU violates Microsoft owned technology without taking the steps to address those infringements directly, Microsoft has forfieted any legal right to those technologies.
Now, I'm not sure what the statuette of limitations is on Intellectual Property issues, so I'm not sure if a direct legal forfeiture would stand as Microsoft has as of yet taken no steps to rectify these issues in a legal manner.
However, it is my opinion that if Microsoft does NOT immediately state and make known the infringements, then Microsoft itself is guilty of Mail Fraud.
Think about it. What would be the legal implications if Microsoft has sent the intimations about Linux/GNU using Microsoft technology through the US Postal System. As these claims have not been legally substantiated, but Microsoft is using them to control OEM's and ISV's, then are not the intimations fraudulent? Again, I'm not a lawyer, not by any stretch of anybodies imagination. Maybe I'm looking at this too simply.
Somebody posted in MepisLovers that they didn't understand how exactly Microsoft could be committing mail fraud. While I think it is quite clear what the implications are and how they are arrived at, it looks like I'll have to spell it out.
If you use the US Mail system to transmit any mails that contain fraudulent information that is designed to scam or defraud business's or people, then you are guilty of Mail Fraud.
If Microsoft has used the US Mail System at any time to send letters, copies of letters, memos, or copies of memos to Independent Hardware Developers (ATi, Nvidia, AMD, Intel, Via, SiS, Sun Microsystems), Original Equipment Manufactures (Sun Microsystems, IBM, Dell, Hp, Gateway), Original Design Manufacturers (Foxconn, Clevo), and or Independent Software Vendors (Blizzard, NCSoft, Corel, IBM, Sun Microsystems) where they use the claims that Linux/GNU infringes on Microsoft developed and held technology in order to halt development, suspend development, or interfere with development projects and or products...
then Microsoft is guilty of Mail Fraud. Microsoft would be using the Mail System to defraud the IDH's, OEM's, ODM's, and ISV's.
To parallel this, imagine Toyota sending letters to Ford, Chevy, and BMW because Toyota owns the technology behind a 4 door car. Because of these letters, Ford, Chevy, and BMW can not make 4 door cars. However, it is found that Toyota did not hold the technology behind the 4 door car. If Toyota has sent any of the letters through the US Postal Service, Toyota would be guilty of defrauding Ford, Chevy, and BMW.
Yes, the example is extreme, and I'll add this into the blog post, but it should paint a clearer picture of what Microsoft may have done.
Now, I need to stress this : I don't have any proof that Microsoft has done this, or is guilty of Mail Fraud. I do know, however, that Microsoft's legal team would use any method possible to attack Linux/GNU vendors. Since many vendors sell and/or ship their CD's through the US Postal Service, they could be opened up to Mail Fraud as they would have been misleading their clients/customers about what they were shipping through the service.
A more specific example of what Microsoft could have done is this: Lets say that somebody is making a cross platform mail server and they publish the code to SourceForge. Microsoft sends the developer a letter stating that their mail server uses technology from Microsoft Exchange that Microsoft owns. The developer is given the proposed choices of pulling his software, buying a license from Microsoft to use the technology, or being taken to court and sued for using the technology. However, if it is found that Microsoft was not the holder of the technologies, and that say, Qualcomm was the holder of technologies, then Microsoft will have committed fraud in their letter. If the letter was sent through the US Postal Service, then Microsoft would have been guilty of Mail Fraud. Again, this is just an EXAMPLE.
As such, I stand behind the challenge made by at http://showusthecode.com : Microsoft needs to stand up and either legally defend their property, or we need to start declaring any further intimations to be libelous.
From there, we should take the appropriate actions against any news source (be it Associated Press or Reuters) that runs Microsoft's threats without noting that there has been no legal action to protect the technology. It would also be my opinion that at such a point the Open Source Communities should start taking their own appropriate actions and notifying various regulatory authorities and demanding investigations.
That is what I would like to see happen, but I will be the first to admit, I doubt it would.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Vista: A Behavioral Overview.
A Conservative and a Liberal go out to play a game of golf, and they grab one of the course pro's to go with them. The conservative goes first, picks a club out of the bag, puts the ball on the tee, and then takes a swing. The bawl careens off to the left and smacks a tree, dropping dead. The conservative stands there for a second, then says I screwed that up. The conservative then turns to the Course Pro and asks What did I do wrong?
While the conservative and course pro talk about the stance, angle of the club, and how the hands are held, the liberal takes the same club, grabs another ball, steps up the tee, and takes his shot. The liberal's shot hooks far right and lands in a lake. The liberal stands there for a second, then says Oh well, the wind got in the way. The course pro, now paying attention, states that there is no wind, and points to the wind sock atop the club house which lies limp. The liberal hmms, then says I guess this club is bad then. The course pro blinks, then tells the liberal he is using the same club that the conservative used. The liberal pauses again, then says, Well this is a bad brand of balls, I need to go get a different brand.
Most of us probably know somebody like the liberal pictured here. It never occurs to them that when something goes wrong, it is because of something that they directly did. Our conservative golfer blamed himself for a bad shot, while the liberal golfer blamed everything but himself. Oh no, there couldn't be anything wrong with the way he made the shot, it has to be something else.
Microsoft, or more specifically, Steve Ballmer, seems to have the same kind of problem as our liberal golfer. Vista is not selling at all in retail. Consumers are buying Vista at only a fraction of the sales Xp enjoyed in it's retail launch. Steve Ballmer comes out and states that the slow sales of Vista are due to Pirates, and that to counter this, Vista will be locked down even further and there are more draconian methods of control on the way. Source : http://www.arnnet.com.au/index.php/id;7680622;fp;16;fpid;1
What Ballmer, and Microsoft by extension, seem to be incapable of considering is that Vista's slow sales might be a fault of something they (Microsoft) have done. Consumers just may not be interested in Vista at all for a variety of reasons. Many are probably turned off by the Digital Rights Management inherent in the system. Many are turned off by the high system requirements, and more are turned off by non-functional drivers and the lack of backwards compatibility.
Microsoft, with Vista, faces the same problem Sony faces with the Playstation3. There has to be a discernible need or desire in order for the product to sell. Sony was never able to convince customers that Blu-Ray was worth $600, and on an extremely lackluster game library, the Playstation3 has collectively flopped in retail sales. The same applies to Vista. Most consumers don't know what Vista does for them, and aside from the 3D desktop, would be hard pressed to name one major feature in Vista. I'm supposed to be a tech writer, and that's all I can come up with off the top of my head that is a major departure from Windows Xp.
On the other hand, many Linux's have over the past years have created their own markets by fulfilling the wants and desires of computer users. Linux users have had two real 3D desktops in the java based XGL accelerated Looking Glass, and the AIGLX accelerated Compiz, now forked into Beryl. Between KDE, FluxBox, XFCE, IceWM, and Gnome Linux users have a variety of different desktops that they customize to what they want or need. In addition, even a modern Linux with X.org 7.1 will run fine on a Pentium III @ 500mhz : http://www.mepisguides.com/Mepis-6/video/what_can_you_use.html
It never seems to occur to Microsoft that they can't sell products because people just don't want those products.
Really, take a look at every section but the Office and Xp units within Microsoft. The Home Entertainment Division, responsible for the Xbox, Xbox 360, and Zune have recorded loss after loss after loss. The Xbox 360 may make a profit in 2008, ignoring the several million dollar writer-offs which started at $26 million in 2003. I repeat, started at.
The Mobile Unit division, which is responsible for PocketPC, only has 4%-5% of the smart phone market, Linux having a double digit (15% +) and Symbian having over 75% of the market.
The fact is, everything Microsoft does but Office and Windows fails. Consumers don't want Microsoft in those other markets, and now many of those consumers are catching onto the fact that they do have a choice in what they run on their home Computer. They are not just stuck with Windows or a Mac. There are legitimate User-Friendly choices in Mepis, Ubuntu, and PCLinuxOS.
Microsoft, through Ballmer, seem incapable of considering these factors. There must be another reason besides something that they (Microsoft) have done to explain people not buying Vista. It couldn't possibly be that consumers do not want Vista. Microsoft, through Ballmer, seems to be of the opinion that just because they release a product, people will buy it.
Now, aside from Apple, most of the industry isn't that arrogant. Sony had the guts to come out and declare that 5 million people would buy the Playstation3 with no games. That did not happen. Playstation3 units are in stock at most major US retailers, and at most major retailers where the Playstation3 has launched.
My advice to Microsoft is get over the liberalism. Start asking What did we do Wrong, and then go from there. If Microsoft can admit that the problem is internal, then maybe we'll get a Windows in the future that people want to buy again.
For now, I'm happy with Linux, and that is where I think I am going to stay.
While the conservative and course pro talk about the stance, angle of the club, and how the hands are held, the liberal takes the same club, grabs another ball, steps up the tee, and takes his shot. The liberal's shot hooks far right and lands in a lake. The liberal stands there for a second, then says Oh well, the wind got in the way. The course pro, now paying attention, states that there is no wind, and points to the wind sock atop the club house which lies limp. The liberal hmms, then says I guess this club is bad then. The course pro blinks, then tells the liberal he is using the same club that the conservative used. The liberal pauses again, then says, Well this is a bad brand of balls, I need to go get a different brand.
Most of us probably know somebody like the liberal pictured here. It never occurs to them that when something goes wrong, it is because of something that they directly did. Our conservative golfer blamed himself for a bad shot, while the liberal golfer blamed everything but himself. Oh no, there couldn't be anything wrong with the way he made the shot, it has to be something else.
Microsoft, or more specifically, Steve Ballmer, seems to have the same kind of problem as our liberal golfer. Vista is not selling at all in retail. Consumers are buying Vista at only a fraction of the sales Xp enjoyed in it's retail launch. Steve Ballmer comes out and states that the slow sales of Vista are due to Pirates, and that to counter this, Vista will be locked down even further and there are more draconian methods of control on the way. Source : http://www.arnnet.com.au/index.php/id;7680622;fp;16;fpid;1
What Ballmer, and Microsoft by extension, seem to be incapable of considering is that Vista's slow sales might be a fault of something they (Microsoft) have done. Consumers just may not be interested in Vista at all for a variety of reasons. Many are probably turned off by the Digital Rights Management inherent in the system. Many are turned off by the high system requirements, and more are turned off by non-functional drivers and the lack of backwards compatibility.
Microsoft, with Vista, faces the same problem Sony faces with the Playstation3. There has to be a discernible need or desire in order for the product to sell. Sony was never able to convince customers that Blu-Ray was worth $600, and on an extremely lackluster game library, the Playstation3 has collectively flopped in retail sales. The same applies to Vista. Most consumers don't know what Vista does for them, and aside from the 3D desktop, would be hard pressed to name one major feature in Vista. I'm supposed to be a tech writer, and that's all I can come up with off the top of my head that is a major departure from Windows Xp.
On the other hand, many Linux's have over the past years have created their own markets by fulfilling the wants and desires of computer users. Linux users have had two real 3D desktops in the java based XGL accelerated Looking Glass, and the AIGLX accelerated Compiz, now forked into Beryl. Between KDE, FluxBox, XFCE, IceWM, and Gnome Linux users have a variety of different desktops that they customize to what they want or need. In addition, even a modern Linux with X.org 7.1 will run fine on a Pentium III @ 500mhz : http://www.mepisguides.com/Mepis-6/video/what_can_you_use.html
It never seems to occur to Microsoft that they can't sell products because people just don't want those products.
Really, take a look at every section but the Office and Xp units within Microsoft. The Home Entertainment Division, responsible for the Xbox, Xbox 360, and Zune have recorded loss after loss after loss. The Xbox 360 may make a profit in 2008, ignoring the several million dollar writer-offs which started at $26 million in 2003. I repeat, started at.
The Mobile Unit division, which is responsible for PocketPC, only has 4%-5% of the smart phone market, Linux having a double digit (15% +) and Symbian having over 75% of the market.
The fact is, everything Microsoft does but Office and Windows fails. Consumers don't want Microsoft in those other markets, and now many of those consumers are catching onto the fact that they do have a choice in what they run on their home Computer. They are not just stuck with Windows or a Mac. There are legitimate User-Friendly choices in Mepis, Ubuntu, and PCLinuxOS.
Microsoft, through Ballmer, seem incapable of considering these factors. There must be another reason besides something that they (Microsoft) have done to explain people not buying Vista. It couldn't possibly be that consumers do not want Vista. Microsoft, through Ballmer, seems to be of the opinion that just because they release a product, people will buy it.
Now, aside from Apple, most of the industry isn't that arrogant. Sony had the guts to come out and declare that 5 million people would buy the Playstation3 with no games. That did not happen. Playstation3 units are in stock at most major US retailers, and at most major retailers where the Playstation3 has launched.
My advice to Microsoft is get over the liberalism. Start asking What did we do Wrong, and then go from there. If Microsoft can admit that the problem is internal, then maybe we'll get a Windows in the future that people want to buy again.
For now, I'm happy with Linux, and that is where I think I am going to stay.
I hate Hurricanes: repost
With March fast approaching, Hurricane Season will be here soon. I figured I'd repost one of my more popular LJ entries:
... read this and understand why I hate hurricanes.
For those who ever have visited Cox.com, you might realize that Cox Communications is the primary cable service provider across Baton Rouge, New Orleans, and Lafeytte Lousinana. In other words, the primary supplier for ALL of Lousiana. Cox Communications is also the primary cable provider for Tyler, Conroe, Luffick, and other parts of eastern Texas. As already posted before, Katrina took out most of our Lousiana network...
Rita finished the job. Right now we are estimating that about over 30 miles of fiber lines are gone, shredded. Other digitial feed lines that link the smaller towns and cities throughout Lousiana and Eastern Texas are like-wise removed from existance.
As such, I figure that I should pass on, to you, things to not do when you have a hurricane move within close proximity to your home, house, city, or other location.
1st : Do not call in when the hurricane is in your town. Especially if the eye of the hurricane has centered on Bossier Lousinana. There is not need to call in to inform us that you are missing services. You are in a hurricane. Trust us, we know that.
2nd : Do not call in stating that you need your cable tv so that you can check the weather.
2nd-A : If you are in a Hurricane prone area when asked if the radio stations are no longer broadcasting wether data, do not claim that you are too poor to afford a portable radio. Especially if you pay $90 a month for cable access.
2nd-B : And no, your cable provider is not going to provide a portable radio for you. You live in a hurricane prone area, you get your own radio.
3rd : If for some reason you retain service when the fringes of the hurricane pass over you, and then some time later you lose service, do keep in mind that it is a hurricane. A hurricane is normally several hundred miles wide, and just because it passed over your town without issue does not mean that it is going to pass over other towns without issue.
3rd-b : if you have to have a Cable Tech representative explain to you that a hurricane is big, then you do not need to be calling, much less breathing.
4th : Hurricane Clean-up is messy. Period. Your cable provider, if missing significant parts of their network, will have to rebuild that network. Because of this, do be aware that we are not going to garrentee full service for the duration of the cleanup. We will do our best to establish basic cable services. High Speed Internet, HBO, and other premium channels are luxery services. They are not a priority. We don't care if you make your living selling stuff on ebay. We will not deviate from getting the backbone of our network fixed to get you back online.
4th-b : If you live in a hurricane prone area, keep in mind that redunancies and backups are your life-blood. If you depend on the internet to make a living, have more than one service provider.
5th : wrestling is fake. Get over it. And no, we can't somehow magically make a Pay Per View System that is completely offline get back online just so you can watch sweaty men in tights grab each others butt.
5th-b : if while talking you reveal that you don't have a roof over your head, you have bigger problems than not being able to watch sweaty men in tights grab each others butt.
6th : Keep in mind that the word network means that things are connected together. A network can consist of many different items. A cable network generally consists of many different points where cable connections are made. If you live in a small town, do consider that your cable probably comes in from a larger city. As such, even if you are not directly affected by a natural disaster, such as a hurricane, and the larger city is, your cable connection will suffer the same problems as the larger city.
6th-b : Also, keep in mind that while we will try to restore basic service as soon as possible, if we need to repair lines in the larger city, you will probably be affected again with loss of service. This is to be expected.
7th : There is no need to call and ask if your account is going to be credited. A hurricane hit. We know that. Quit asking. We don't even know if you are there using the cable.
8th : If you have an existing cable problem such as fuzzy pictures, no pictures, or no internet access, please call and deal with the problem when it occurs. Do not wait until after a natural disaster has occured before calling in for the problem as there are probably going to be no technicians available to deal with your problem. Given that a natural disaster has occured, most qualified technicians will be on duty trying to patch the downed lines and other damaged parts of the network. Please expect a time period of weeks before someone is able to personally drop by with your problem.
8th-b : when informed that the only information that your cable company is seeking is wether or not there is a downed line in your area, do not get in a huff and demand a supervisor because we will not schedule an unavailable technician to get to your problem in a couple of weeks.
9th : when informed that no supervisor is avaible, it means no supervisors are available. Keep in mind that if you waited on hold for 2+ hours to speak with a representative, it probably means that the peoeple you are calling are swamped. In such a case any supervisors are probably also taking front-line calls.
9th-b : for the slow. that means the supervisors aren't there.
10th : If you live in a hurricane prone area, and there is a hurricane headed your way, do take time to prepare:
10-A : Get a portable radio
10-B : Evacuate, get out of town
10-C : Contact your utlitie providers and ask if they intend to stay in office. If they are closing up shop, you should too.
10-D : ... do not call your cable company until a week after the hurricane has passed and only if you have a downed line.
If you are a person who finds this list offensive, or simply do not understand the list, I have these instructions for you.
1: If you have cable tv, please return your tv box to the cable company at your earliest convience.
2: Please take any TV's you have in the house and please donate them to goodwill.
3: If you have high speed internet with a cable company, please return your modem to the appropiate vendor.
4: Also, pack the computer up and return it to whomever you got it from.
5: Honestly, you just don't need a computer.
Memory Bandwith Analogy
One of my clients recently cross graded from a 9600 Pro to what he believed was a 9800 Pro. The card in question turned out to be the 9800 SE, 128 bit edition, basically a down grade in the long run. So, I attempted to explain the differences between the cards, and one of the subjects was the number of bits listed for Memory Bus Width.
A normal Radeon 9800 Pro has a 256bit memory bus, while the 9800 SE normally has a 128-bit bus. So this is the analogy I gave the client.
Imagine you have a 20x20 room. You have 8 big strong guys in the room who build vehicles. They can build a truck, a sports car, or a compact car. The Room is the graphics card, and the number of guys inside are the number of shaders available in the card. In the case of the 9600 and 9800, they only have 4 guys inside this room, instead of 8, so they only have half the power available.
Our Memory Bus Width though, is the door in the room. The size of our door impacts how many parts can be taken in and out. A 128bit bus width would be a typical 4 foot wide door. A 256bit Bus would be two double doors, and a 64bit bus would be half a door.
Now, if you want a compact car, it's going to be very easy to move the small parts in and out regardless of the size of the door. Even with only half a door, our guys could probably build a Geo Metro.
In computer terms, this would be running in Low Resolution with Low Detail in a game. There is not much going on, so the card is able to keep up easily. However, if you increase the size of the door, you don't see any benifit.
Now, if you want a sports car, say like a Mustang, you'll need to move larger parts in and out of the door. With only half a door, it'll be hard to fit the engine block in, and the frame would probably have to be assembled inside the room, so our big strong guys will be working harder. Our guys would also have to wait longer for parts to be shuttled in and out with a limited amount of space.
In computer terms, this would be turning up the resolution and detail level. The card is going to have to work harder to display the image, but if it has a low memory bandwith, or a small door, then the Graphics card will be spending a lot of time just waiting for more information. The higher the Bus Width, the more information that can be transferred.
If you want a Big Ole Truck, something with a v12 Hemi inside, you'll need a massive door to get the engine block inside. That big door will also come in handy moving the frame inside. Go with a smaller door though, and you'll have to break everything down on one side of the door, pass it through, and then re-assemble it in the room.
In computer terms, this is turning the resolution and detail levels all the way up. The card is going to be put to work to put everything together. But, if it can't transfer the information in and out, it's going to wind up waiting on the information to transfer. So, a big door, or high memory bus width will help.
Now, this analogy can be built on by talking about Memory Speeds, or how quick parts can be sent through the door, or by talking about Shader Efficiency, how much work the guys inside can actually do in a given time.
But, I hope it gives a rough idea on why Memory Bus Width Matters. This may also help explain upgrades that were not really upgrades. For example, if you had a 9800 Pro and you upgrade to an x1600 Pro, you would have more of a cross-grade.
A normal Radeon 9800 Pro has a 256bit memory bus, while the 9800 SE normally has a 128-bit bus. So this is the analogy I gave the client.
Imagine you have a 20x20 room. You have 8 big strong guys in the room who build vehicles. They can build a truck, a sports car, or a compact car. The Room is the graphics card, and the number of guys inside are the number of shaders available in the card. In the case of the 9600 and 9800, they only have 4 guys inside this room, instead of 8, so they only have half the power available.
Our Memory Bus Width though, is the door in the room. The size of our door impacts how many parts can be taken in and out. A 128bit bus width would be a typical 4 foot wide door. A 256bit Bus would be two double doors, and a 64bit bus would be half a door.
Now, if you want a compact car, it's going to be very easy to move the small parts in and out regardless of the size of the door. Even with only half a door, our guys could probably build a Geo Metro.
In computer terms, this would be running in Low Resolution with Low Detail in a game. There is not much going on, so the card is able to keep up easily. However, if you increase the size of the door, you don't see any benifit.
Now, if you want a sports car, say like a Mustang, you'll need to move larger parts in and out of the door. With only half a door, it'll be hard to fit the engine block in, and the frame would probably have to be assembled inside the room, so our big strong guys will be working harder. Our guys would also have to wait longer for parts to be shuttled in and out with a limited amount of space.
In computer terms, this would be turning up the resolution and detail level. The card is going to have to work harder to display the image, but if it has a low memory bandwith, or a small door, then the Graphics card will be spending a lot of time just waiting for more information. The higher the Bus Width, the more information that can be transferred.
If you want a Big Ole Truck, something with a v12 Hemi inside, you'll need a massive door to get the engine block inside. That big door will also come in handy moving the frame inside. Go with a smaller door though, and you'll have to break everything down on one side of the door, pass it through, and then re-assemble it in the room.
In computer terms, this is turning the resolution and detail levels all the way up. The card is going to be put to work to put everything together. But, if it can't transfer the information in and out, it's going to wind up waiting on the information to transfer. So, a big door, or high memory bus width will help.
Now, this analogy can be built on by talking about Memory Speeds, or how quick parts can be sent through the door, or by talking about Shader Efficiency, how much work the guys inside can actually do in a given time.
But, I hope it gives a rough idea on why Memory Bus Width Matters. This may also help explain upgrades that were not really upgrades. For example, if you had a 9800 Pro and you upgrade to an x1600 Pro, you would have more of a cross-grade.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Communistic Microsoft : Repost
One of the more popular stories going around right now is the decision of Cuba to drop Microsoft and embrace open Source. Several news sources made lines like "Socialistic country throws off chains of Capitalistic Empire." The problem is that Microsoft is far from Capitalistic, and this isn't exactly a new argument.
Several years ago Microsoft laid the claim that Linux was Communistic. I issued a rebuttal to the very idea, pointing out the obvious. Linux, and Open Source, by it's very nature, is Capitalistic. I also drew direct parallels from Microsoft's behavior to the behavior of Communistic and Socialistic countries. The end result is obvious : anyone who has ever bothered to actually sit through Economics 101 would be laughing their rear ends off at the idea of Microsoft being a Capitalistic Empire. Whether or not Cuba likes it, by Embracing Open-Source, they are embracing the Capitalism Business Model, and throwing off the chains of the Communistic or Socialistic Microsoft.
I also want to bring this up now because Microsoft's corporate behavior may give some insight onto how Microsoft is responding to the lack of Vista sales. But, before I can go into what Microsoft is doing now, I need to correct the likes of CNN and NBC about economic viewpoints.
Now, the original rebuttal was modified with an ending to reflect on a recent Presidential Election. With several candidates throwing their hats into the ring, perhaps it is time to consider the economic impact of Elections again, something the AP, CNN, NBC, and Reuters avoided talking about during the 2006 USA elections.
Several years ago Microsoft laid the claim that Linux was Communistic. I issued a rebuttal to the very idea, pointing out the obvious. Linux, and Open Source, by it's very nature, is Capitalistic. I also drew direct parallels from Microsoft's behavior to the behavior of Communistic and Socialistic countries. The end result is obvious : anyone who has ever bothered to actually sit through Economics 101 would be laughing their rear ends off at the idea of Microsoft being a Capitalistic Empire. Whether or not Cuba likes it, by Embracing Open-Source, they are embracing the Capitalism Business Model, and throwing off the chains of the Communistic or Socialistic Microsoft.
I also want to bring this up now because Microsoft's corporate behavior may give some insight onto how Microsoft is responding to the lack of Vista sales. But, before I can go into what Microsoft is doing now, I need to correct the likes of CNN and NBC about economic viewpoints.
Now, the original rebuttal was modified with an ending to reflect on a recent Presidential Election. With several candidates throwing their hats into the ring, perhaps it is time to consider the economic impact of Elections again, something the AP, CNN, NBC, and Reuters avoided talking about during the 2006 USA elections.
Why Microsoft Windows is more communistic than Linux.
Microsoft Corporation has been well known for launching many attacks against competitors. Most of the times, the attacks are baseless, and borderline ludicrous. Yet, for some reason, Microsoft continues to get away with doing so. In the attacks against the Linux Kernel and GNU operating system Microsoft has laid the charge the the Linux/GNU system is a viral and communistic. This is quite an interesting charge to anybody who stayed awake during government in middle school and economics in high school. Anybody familiar with the basic tenants of capitalism and communism will instantly realize that the charge is much more accurate if aimed in the other direction.
For the benefit of those who slept during either of those classics, the concepts are somewhat abbreviated in the following.
Capitalism is often referred to as the “free market” economy, while communism is typically a “closed market” economy.
In a capitalistic society the economy is decided by those actually selling and buying inside the market. In a communism based society the economy is dictated from above by a ruling class that gets a percentage of every sale and purchase.
When you deal with Microsoft, Microsoft has this view that it alone is the only vendor worth dealing with. Microsoft has the view that it should not have to deal with external vendors to itself and that it should be wholly reliant upon it's own existence as a perpetuated entity. When it does have to deal with external vendors Microsoft has a nasty habit of backstabbing and complaining about it. Smaller external vendors run the risk of being swallowed up by Microsoft.
This behavior and attitude has a scary resemblance to the Soviet Union and to Red China. Both the Soviet Union and China feel they should be reliant upon themselves alone for all supplies. Neither of the communistic countries like having to deal with competitors outside of their own borders. And, in the case of the Soviet Union, smaller competitors found themselves at risk to either be invaded, or sign the Warsaw pact. China's government also has a history of expansion, and continues to have ideas that Taiwan never was separated from mainland China. Or the whole mess with the Koreans. The similarities of Microsoft to these two nations of history cannot be ignored.
People who deal with Microsoft also have other Microsoft only issues to deal with. Microsoft will provide everything, from office suite, to database, to groupware, to anti-virus and security tools. However, the user has no say in any of these products. Suggestions for improvements or customization does not happen with Microsoft. In many cases business buy one product to find they also have to buy another they don't need. Any changes to the products come from Microsoft itself without any 3rd party input. Users of the products do not have any direct say about the products or how those products are produced. And, like it or not, Microsoft isn't able to deliver on any of its promises. The security is the industry's standard for bad. Documents saved in office suites are not compatible with older suites and may not be compatible with future suites. The Microsoft groupware tools are the most viral prone and buggy programs ever created, and as far as anti-virus tools go? Microsoft's job as the OS builder is to fix the problems that allow virus's. Not to build an program to catch malicious code that makes use of problems that should have been fixed. The database tools also have up-times measured in weeks, not months or years.
People who lived in the Soviet Union were promised everything by the government. They were promised food and shelter, as well as an equal lifestyle. Eveybody was equal. However, as is now well known, the Soviet Union was incapable of meeting these promises. But the people living in the soviet Union were never told about the problems, simply because somebody in the Kremlin decided they did not need to know. The Soviet Union had one of the worlds worst standards of living for years, along with many quote “human rights violations.” Yet the people living within the Soviet Union found themselves helpless for years because they had no say in the government. Which eventually brought about yet another revolution. In China it was taught that those who intended to revolt ran the risk of getting run over by tanks. And many of the problems are mirrored in China that the Soviet Union suffered. The all-inclusive nature of the Soviet Union led to a revolt and the topple of the communistic government. Should we, as people today, be scared of the mirror of this all-inclusive nature as invisioned by Microsoft? YES! In several cases, to name Mike-Rowe-soft as one, opponents to Microsoft have learned that to attempt any actions against Microsoft also results in getting run over by a tank.
Microsoft itself is run by the well known Steve Ballmer and Bill Gates duo. There is no say from the purchasers of the companies stock and product in how these two run the Microsoft business. Not even the Federal government of the US succeeded when it came down to telling Microsoft what actions it could take and not take. Ventures that lose several million dollars, such as the Xbox, remain in production whereas in any other corporate culture heads would be rolling at the behest of the owners and stockholders. While Microsoft does take some steps to “prove” that it is in touch with the average Microsoft buyer, the fact is the average purchaser of products has nothing to say about the product.
The similarities to the Soviet Union and China again are almost mirror quality. Average citizens simply had no say on what the overseeing body did, and had no direct control over the overseeing body. Badly thought of ventures were common among the Soviet Union and common among China today. And yet, no protests are heard. What do the citizens of China feel about Taiwan? What do they feel about Korea?
Now, to step back and compare just these 3 examples given to the Linux/GNU system.
When you deal with Linux many vendors are quite well aware of other vendors. Kmail, thunderbird, and Evolution play nicely together. OpenOffice and Koffice will share a common document format. IBM is just as aware of Novell as both are aware of RedHat. And each gets treated more or less as an equal. The sale is often made on what the product can offer you, not what you mean as a statistic on a sales chart to the overall bottom line. When dealing with external vendors the Linux/GNU system builders have a bad habit of turning the other cheek. But, take care not to press too hard, because once the community is mobilized to a goal, little will stand in the way. Linux/GNU system builders also do not rely upon themselves alone to accomplish work. Many actively support other projects such Java, Harmony, or the aforementioned OpenOffice projects, as well as desktop projects like KDE or Gnome. While backstabbing does happen, the communities and business's build on Linux/GNU don't look kindly upon the events. While take-overs still happen, hostile takeovers are generally frowned upon, but a business will offer the best incentives it can to entice a worker to change employers.
These are markedly similar to the US. The US is well aware of other countries and works with them on many levels. Sometimes willingly, sometimes not so willingly. Like Linux/GNU system builders, the US has a bad habit of turning the cheek. Think of all the terrorist attacks prior to Sept 11th. The battleship Cole. The Embassy bombs. The domestic terror such as the World Trade Center bombings. But when the country got pressed, the US pressed back. Hard.
The US also doesn't rely on itself to provide everything. Business's are free to outsource to other countries for labor or manufacturing space. The US is willing to trade the products it has in bulk, such as food, with other countries at the drop of a hat. The US also sponsors medical health programs in Africa as well as dozens of other beneficial programs around the world. And the US doesn't take to kindly to backstabbing or expansionism. There is a long and rich history to both types of events. And during the Cold War, the US enticed many a Russian to defect to a better place. Because the US offered the best incentive it could. Freedom. Freedom with Responsibility upon the citizen, but real Freedom.
In the Linux/GNU communities, every product will be offered that can be offered. Sometimes though, these offers come from competing vendors. In the Linux/GNU community, security is among the industry's best. The groupware tools also operate on several different levels, ranging from common file formats to common database access formats. Documents saved in existing formats can be read anywhere, and generally on older machines that support that format. For example, documents saved in the .swx format, for Star Office, can be read on any program that supports the .swx format. Now, while advanced formatting features created in OpenOffice 1.4, may not be readable to Star Office 4, the text itself is still available to be accessed. And documents created in Star Office 4 are supported under OpenOffice. Database times for Linux/GNU systems have uptimes measured in months or years, and the need for an anti-virus program itself is questionable. Developers of Linux/GNU systems focus on fixing the bugs and problems that allow the creation of virus's, rather than spending time creating programs to find programs that execute malicious code.
Another major difference is that the end user does have a say in how the programs are developed on several different levels. In many Linux/GNU organizations there is a voting method in place, such as Debian. Members involved with the development can vote for who they want running the program, rather than accepting a draconian system that puts only one person in charge.
Beyond voting, the basis of Linux/GNU itself also serves as a control method. One of the tenants of Linux/GNU is that the source code is open for all to see. While some organizations do put some restrictions on what can be done with that code, it is available. This brings about one of the most deadly controls available to Linux/GNU. The Fork. When a project is forked, a group of developers takes the existing open source code, and then goes and does their own thing with it. For example, X.org versus Xfree86. Developers unhappy with the new license terms of Xfree86 took the old code and broke away to form X.org, which already has surpassed Xfree86 in terms of support and features in it's beta state.
The beauty of the Linux/GNU community is that those who want to take charge, can. If a user doesn't like the problem they are free to fix it an offer their own solution. If it's a better solution then the process has succeeded. If it's an average solution, there is now more choice. If it's a bad solution, well.
The controls of the Linux/GNU system are also present in the controls of the US. While the government does offer several programs to benefit the citizens, better solutions are available to the quote “private sector.” People willing to work for a living don't have to put up with the “baseline” standards. There is choice available and citizens are free to pick the choice that suits them.
The process of votes and the control of Forks are also established within the US political system. If an elected representative is not doing his job, eventually his job will come up for re-election and the voters can put someone in place who will do the job. If a citizen feels that he or she has the solution to the problem they are also free to run for office. The average citizen has a right to stand up for his beliefs and a right to expect his elected representative to make those beliefs known. And the citizen has a right to stand up and put him or herself up for election.
Many of the arguments for the second example given also apply to the third argument and there really is no need to get repetitive. The system of controls in place in the Linux/GNU communities allows the average user to get involved, just as the voting and election process of the US allows an average citizen to get involved. The examples given here as just some of the stark differences when comparing Linux/GNU to Microsoft and comparing the US to the Soviet Union or China. It is very clear that Microsoft, of all, is extremely communistic in behavior, and that Linux/GNU is a far more capitalistic approach to the computer generations. It is clear that Linux/GNU promotes Freedom, real and tangible Freedom, much like the US promoted Freedom during the Cold War. Yes, it is a Freedom with responsibility left up to the citizen, but it is real. Microsoft offers no Freedoms. Yes, the cage is pretty and has nice curves. But a cage covered with gold is still a cage.
Now, at this point I would encourage the US readers of this to sit back and think in their heads which political parties support which ideals. Which political parties hold the ideals of the Soviet Union and China and therefor the ideals of Microsoft. And which political parties uphold the practices of the United States. And to think about who was voted for in the last election. Did you vote for the Communistic con artist? Or did you vote for the supporter of capitalism and Freedom? And would you really want to put a party in place that does not have the best economic interests of the country in mind? Or would you rather have a party that has the economic interests in mind, as well as the real Freedom of it's citizens.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Would Microsoft or Sony copy the Wii?
This week I managed to pull off the impossible. I got a Nintendo Wii system. The next day I went out and got Excite Truck, and I've been playing it since then.
Yesterday a friend came over and I got him to play. Now, my friend has an Xbox 360, and is a strong supporter of the Xbox system. He loves it and is constantly harassing me to get one, which probably isn't going to happen unless somebody donates one for the purpose of getting a PPC Linux Distro to work. So Rob comes in, seeing me playing, and try's to figure out what I'm playing with, followed by a condescending "Oh you got a Wii?" So, I set him down, handed him the remote, and his next words where "Oh this can't be any good, there isn't even an analog stick, how am I supposed to control the game?"
Rob was appearently somebody who missed the big deal about the Wii remote control, that its movement is tracked in a full 360 sphere of motion. After a few minutes in the tutorial, he seemed to have a decent idea on how to use the remote to drive, so into race mode he went.
After about 45 minutes of watching Rob go at Excite Truck, giggling like a schoolboy after school has let out, I went to take the controller back... Didn't happen, he was that far into the game. After having crashed multiple times though, and having gotten several D ratings in a row, my friend finally tired of the game, and from there we started to talk about the merits of the system. My friend was puzzled as to why I didn't get a 360 if I had the money. (for those who donate, no, your donations were not spent on this) .
First of all, the 360 with the Hard-drive is well over $150 more expensive than the Wii, and since I'm on what one would call an extremely limited budget, it really wasn't an option.
Second, the 360, and the Playstation3 for that matter, offer the exact same gameplay of their predecessors. Lets be honest, most developers are not going to use SIXAXIS since they can't port SIXAXIS games to the Xbox 360 or to the Wii. Anyways, the Xbox 360 just offers more of the same as before. I already have a Playstation 2, a Gamecube, and an Xbox, not to mention several PC's. I don't need another device that does the same thing.
The Wii, however, offers a completely different gameplay experience. Games made with the WiiMote in mind are fundamentally different in how they operate. Sure, you don't actually have to swing the remote like a baseball bat in Wii Sports, but being able to do so adds a visceral element to the game that no other console can match.
As I was droning on about what set the Wii apart, Rob stopped me and stated that if it was so great, Microsoft would be offering this type of control on the Xbox 360 next year.
And now we get to the point of what I want to talk about. A lot of of people analyzing the video game industry have stated that the DS is a gimmick, and that the Wii is a gimic. Whether or not the console sells, or trashes it's competition, it is just a gimmick to some people. Rob is not the first person I've heard to express the opinion that if the Wii is very successful that Microsoft will add the remote functionality to the Xbox 360, and that Sony will upgrade SIXAXIS to WiiMote functionality.
There are several reasons why this would not happen.
The first reason is of course patents and licensing. If Nintendo has patented the implementation of Motion Sensing technology as it is used in the Wii, then Sony and Microsoft would need to license the technology from Nintendo. If Nintendo has not patented the implementation, but merely licensed it, then Sony and Microsoft would need to license it from who-ever Nintendo licensed the technology from. Money costs aside, whoever holds the patent or is licensing the technology could make usage difficult for Microsoft and Sony.
The second, and actually primary reason, is that Console Add On's generally do not sell as well as the console. Adding WiiMote functionality to the 360 or PS3 would alter the fundamental way their games work, thus altering the console. There only have been two vendors before that have changed the fundamental way their console has worked by adding components.
Sega: with the SegaCD, then Sega32x. NEC with the TurboGraphix 16 CD.
As we well know, Sega is no longer in the hardware business with a game console, and NEC has not touched the console market in over a decade.
On top of that, the general rule of thumb is that control peripherals that change the way a game is played, while being profitable, are not widespread.
Consider the number of dance pads available for DDR. Consider the Donkey Konga Bongo's, only used in 3 games. Consider the official Guitar Hero Guitar and The-Ant-Commando's guitars. Think about REZ and the um... "vibrator." Think about the Sony EyeToy.
Yes, there have been peripherals to consoles before that have changed the way the player interacts with the game itself. But, from a top down perspective, the most successful of these add on's averages less than 10% of the Install Base of the console.
The only exceptions to this are the Primary Controllers, and 3rd party Primary Style Controllers. You'll see MadCatz, Nyko, and Pelicon controllers selling just as well as "official" controllers.
The implementation problem for Microsoft and Sony is that if they added WiiMote style gameplay to their games, users would have to buy completely new peripherals in order to play the games. The hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of users who have picked up extra Xbox 360 controllers would be in the position where they would have to buy completely new controllers in order to play the game.
Because Microsoft probably won't go out of their way to completely alienate everybody who has already bought an Xbox 360, it wouldn't make sense to mandate WiiMote style gameplay.
Not enough people would bother buying new controllers, and many gamers may be in the position where they cannot afford new controllers.
Sony, with the current low sales of the Playstation3 may be in a better position to pull off a switch to WiiStyle remote. I just can't see Sony swallowing it's pride long enough to change anything about the Playstation3 to make it a success.
So, in the end, I think it's doubtful that Microsoft or Sony would add WiiMote style gameplay as an official supported gameplay type to their consoles.
Yesterday a friend came over and I got him to play. Now, my friend has an Xbox 360, and is a strong supporter of the Xbox system. He loves it and is constantly harassing me to get one, which probably isn't going to happen unless somebody donates one for the purpose of getting a PPC Linux Distro to work. So Rob comes in, seeing me playing, and try's to figure out what I'm playing with, followed by a condescending "Oh you got a Wii?" So, I set him down, handed him the remote, and his next words where "Oh this can't be any good, there isn't even an analog stick, how am I supposed to control the game?"
Rob was appearently somebody who missed the big deal about the Wii remote control, that its movement is tracked in a full 360 sphere of motion. After a few minutes in the tutorial, he seemed to have a decent idea on how to use the remote to drive, so into race mode he went.
After about 45 minutes of watching Rob go at Excite Truck, giggling like a schoolboy after school has let out, I went to take the controller back... Didn't happen, he was that far into the game. After having crashed multiple times though, and having gotten several D ratings in a row, my friend finally tired of the game, and from there we started to talk about the merits of the system. My friend was puzzled as to why I didn't get a 360 if I had the money. (for those who donate, no, your donations were not spent on this) .
First of all, the 360 with the Hard-drive is well over $150 more expensive than the Wii, and since I'm on what one would call an extremely limited budget, it really wasn't an option.
Second, the 360, and the Playstation3 for that matter, offer the exact same gameplay of their predecessors. Lets be honest, most developers are not going to use SIXAXIS since they can't port SIXAXIS games to the Xbox 360 or to the Wii. Anyways, the Xbox 360 just offers more of the same as before. I already have a Playstation 2, a Gamecube, and an Xbox, not to mention several PC's. I don't need another device that does the same thing.
The Wii, however, offers a completely different gameplay experience. Games made with the WiiMote in mind are fundamentally different in how they operate. Sure, you don't actually have to swing the remote like a baseball bat in Wii Sports, but being able to do so adds a visceral element to the game that no other console can match.
As I was droning on about what set the Wii apart, Rob stopped me and stated that if it was so great, Microsoft would be offering this type of control on the Xbox 360 next year.
And now we get to the point of what I want to talk about. A lot of of people analyzing the video game industry have stated that the DS is a gimmick, and that the Wii is a gimic. Whether or not the console sells, or trashes it's competition, it is just a gimmick to some people. Rob is not the first person I've heard to express the opinion that if the Wii is very successful that Microsoft will add the remote functionality to the Xbox 360, and that Sony will upgrade SIXAXIS to WiiMote functionality.
There are several reasons why this would not happen.
The first reason is of course patents and licensing. If Nintendo has patented the implementation of Motion Sensing technology as it is used in the Wii, then Sony and Microsoft would need to license the technology from Nintendo. If Nintendo has not patented the implementation, but merely licensed it, then Sony and Microsoft would need to license it from who-ever Nintendo licensed the technology from. Money costs aside, whoever holds the patent or is licensing the technology could make usage difficult for Microsoft and Sony.
The second, and actually primary reason, is that Console Add On's generally do not sell as well as the console. Adding WiiMote functionality to the 360 or PS3 would alter the fundamental way their games work, thus altering the console. There only have been two vendors before that have changed the fundamental way their console has worked by adding components.
Sega: with the SegaCD, then Sega32x. NEC with the TurboGraphix 16 CD.
As we well know, Sega is no longer in the hardware business with a game console, and NEC has not touched the console market in over a decade.
On top of that, the general rule of thumb is that control peripherals that change the way a game is played, while being profitable, are not widespread.
Consider the number of dance pads available for DDR. Consider the Donkey Konga Bongo's, only used in 3 games. Consider the official Guitar Hero Guitar and The-Ant-Commando's guitars. Think about REZ and the um... "vibrator." Think about the Sony EyeToy.
Yes, there have been peripherals to consoles before that have changed the way the player interacts with the game itself. But, from a top down perspective, the most successful of these add on's averages less than 10% of the Install Base of the console.
The only exceptions to this are the Primary Controllers, and 3rd party Primary Style Controllers. You'll see MadCatz, Nyko, and Pelicon controllers selling just as well as "official" controllers.
The implementation problem for Microsoft and Sony is that if they added WiiMote style gameplay to their games, users would have to buy completely new peripherals in order to play the games. The hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of users who have picked up extra Xbox 360 controllers would be in the position where they would have to buy completely new controllers in order to play the game.
Because Microsoft probably won't go out of their way to completely alienate everybody who has already bought an Xbox 360, it wouldn't make sense to mandate WiiMote style gameplay.
Not enough people would bother buying new controllers, and many gamers may be in the position where they cannot afford new controllers.
Sony, with the current low sales of the Playstation3 may be in a better position to pull off a switch to WiiStyle remote. I just can't see Sony swallowing it's pride long enough to change anything about the Playstation3 to make it a success.
So, in the end, I think it's doubtful that Microsoft or Sony would add WiiMote style gameplay as an official supported gameplay type to their consoles.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
So what does the security industry use anyways?
It isn't a secret that Symantec and other security companies are not very fond of Microsoft Windows or Microsoft Vista. It probably says something when the CEO of one of the most known software security companies won't move to a new OS that presents itself as being more secure.
John Thompson's comments about him and his company not moving to Vista does raise a question that appearently CNET forget to ask. Such as, what Operating System DO the Security Professionals use themselves? What is on their own home computers?
When I worked for Sitel doing phone support for HSI customers, I didn't make it a secret to customers that I was the worst person within Cox Communications to talk to about Computer Security. I told them up front that I simply knew too much. As a Technical Support Representative it was my job to stay on top of all the potential problems that customers could possibly call in for, be it 169 software errors, malfunctioning modems, or viral infestations. I informed them that I had to keep track of all of the reported virus's that could be in effect on the system, or affecting the system, in order to properly diagnose whatever Connection Issue they were having. This placed me in the position where I could readily link to, and read off, several dozen virus reports in mere seconds. The inevitable question then was : What do you use?
Before I continue, I am also going to note that Sitel's definition of Technical Support did not actually include Technical Support. Solving or identifying the problem was not encouraged by either Cox Communications management, or Sitel Management.
Anyways, the fact was, many of us Technicians, who approached our jobs as Technicians, don't run Windows. It's not that we can't do it, or we aren't capable of doing it. It is that we know too much about what goes on in the background. It doesn't matter how many hardware firewalls I'm behind, or how good my anti-virus protection is, that isn't going to help me against an Operating System whose very design Elements are based on Removing the Administrator from the User.
So, on behalf of CNET which failed to do it's job, what Operating System does John Thompson run on his home computer? Out of all of his employees, how many of them actually use Windows on a daily basis? How many of them bought into Vista?
If you want my guess over what the response would be, I'm willing to bet that John Thompson himself probably is using Red Hat or Ubuntu on his home computer, and I'm going to lay odds that most of the Software Technicians are probably running Pure Debian or Ubuntu. About the only people I could see in Symantec that would still be running Microsoft for an OS would be Sales Reps, but since their jobs involve selling people on the horror stories of what can happen to Windows and why they Need Norton, it is probably a fair gamble that their Home Systems are probably running Mepis, Ubuntu, or PCLinuxOS.
I would be very surprised to find very many Symantec Employees running any Microsoft Product on a regular basis outside of their labs.
*note* There is a clear difference between separating Administrator and User access, and removing the ability to use Administrator Controls from the person physically at the computer. Microsoft's vision of security involves removing the Administrator Account from the Operating System presented to the Client, leaving only User Controls. The typical *nix approach is to Separate the Root and User controls, but not actually remove them from the system.
John Thompson's comments about him and his company not moving to Vista does raise a question that appearently CNET forget to ask. Such as, what Operating System DO the Security Professionals use themselves? What is on their own home computers?
When I worked for Sitel doing phone support for HSI customers, I didn't make it a secret to customers that I was the worst person within Cox Communications to talk to about Computer Security. I told them up front that I simply knew too much. As a Technical Support Representative it was my job to stay on top of all the potential problems that customers could possibly call in for, be it 169 software errors, malfunctioning modems, or viral infestations. I informed them that I had to keep track of all of the reported virus's that could be in effect on the system, or affecting the system, in order to properly diagnose whatever Connection Issue they were having. This placed me in the position where I could readily link to, and read off, several dozen virus reports in mere seconds. The inevitable question then was : What do you use?
Before I continue, I am also going to note that Sitel's definition of Technical Support did not actually include Technical Support. Solving or identifying the problem was not encouraged by either Cox Communications management, or Sitel Management.
Anyways, the fact was, many of us Technicians, who approached our jobs as Technicians, don't run Windows. It's not that we can't do it, or we aren't capable of doing it. It is that we know too much about what goes on in the background. It doesn't matter how many hardware firewalls I'm behind, or how good my anti-virus protection is, that isn't going to help me against an Operating System whose very design Elements are based on Removing the Administrator from the User.
So, on behalf of CNET which failed to do it's job, what Operating System does John Thompson run on his home computer? Out of all of his employees, how many of them actually use Windows on a daily basis? How many of them bought into Vista?
If you want my guess over what the response would be, I'm willing to bet that John Thompson himself probably is using Red Hat or Ubuntu on his home computer, and I'm going to lay odds that most of the Software Technicians are probably running Pure Debian or Ubuntu. About the only people I could see in Symantec that would still be running Microsoft for an OS would be Sales Reps, but since their jobs involve selling people on the horror stories of what can happen to Windows and why they Need Norton, it is probably a fair gamble that their Home Systems are probably running Mepis, Ubuntu, or PCLinuxOS.
I would be very surprised to find very many Symantec Employees running any Microsoft Product on a regular basis outside of their labs.
*note* There is a clear difference between separating Administrator and User access, and removing the ability to use Administrator Controls from the person physically at the computer. Microsoft's vision of security involves removing the Administrator Account from the Operating System presented to the Client, leaving only User Controls. The typical *nix approach is to Separate the Root and User controls, but not actually remove them from the system.
Monday, February 05, 2007
So, what hardware do you actually need?
I completed work on one of my "pet" projects over the weekend. Real Time video capture of the most recent Mepis Linux Beta running on a K6-2 Chomper Extended, and a Pentium III Katmai. The version of Mepis Linux in use is the 32bit 6.04 beta release #4.
The page on Mepisguides.com is located here : http://www.mepisguides.com/Mepis-6/video/what_can_you_use.htm
The page on Mepisguides.com is located here : http://www.mepisguides.com/Mepis-6/video/what_can_you_use.htm
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
IBM's idea of kicking Microsoft?
Greg Kroah is one of the Linux Kernel Developers directly employed by IBM. Mr. Kroah has his own site and blog at http://www.kroah.com.
Coincidentally, today is also the day that Microsoft launched Windows Vista, which has a couple of issues. I've already fussed about the state of known problems with the Operating System on this particular blog just days ago, and commented on the security problems back in October 2006.
One of the issues that I haven't talked about has been the state of Vista's drivers. Several popular high end consumer parts for Windows NT5 and Linux, such as Creative's Audigy and X-Fi cards don't work in Vista. High to Low end graphics cards also have issues from ATi and Nvidia. In short, the driver situation for Vista is completely screwed up.
So, maybe I'm reading between the lines a bit too much, but Mr. Kroah wrote the following in his blog here : http://www.kroah.com/log/2007/01/29/#free_drivers
Ouch, I wonder if that's IBM's way of Kicking Microsoft's Teeth in over Drive Support. Greg Kroah, and by extension of IBM by employment, stating that they can get Linux Drivers working for any hardware?
Wow... that's all I can say.
Coincidentally, today is also the day that Microsoft launched Windows Vista, which has a couple of issues. I've already fussed about the state of known problems with the Operating System on this particular blog just days ago, and commented on the security problems back in October 2006.
One of the issues that I haven't talked about has been the state of Vista's drivers. Several popular high end consumer parts for Windows NT5 and Linux, such as Creative's Audigy and X-Fi cards don't work in Vista. High to Low end graphics cards also have issues from ATi and Nvidia. In short, the driver situation for Vista is completely screwed up.
So, maybe I'm reading between the lines a bit too much, but Mr. Kroah wrote the following in his blog here : http://www.kroah.com/log/2007/01/29/#free_drivers
Yes, that's right, the Linux kernel community is offering all companies free Linux driver development. No longer do you have to suffer through all of the different examples in the Linux Device Driver Kit, or pick through the thousands of example drivers in the Linux kernel source tree trying to determine which one is the closest to what you need to do.
All that is needed is some kind of specification that describes how your device works, or the email address of an engineer that is willing to answer questions every once in a while. A few sample devices might be good to have so that debugging doesn't have to be done by email, but if necessary, that can be done.
In return, you will receive a complete and working Linux driver that is added to the main Linux kernel source tree. The driver will be written by some of the members of the Linux kernel developer community (over 1500 strong and growing). This driver will then be automatically included in all Linux distributions, including the "enterprise" ones. It will be automatically kept up to date and working through all Linux kernel API changes. This driver will work with all of the different CPU types supported by Linux, the largest number of CPU types supported by any operating system ever before in the history of computing.
As for support, the driver will be supported through email by the original developers, when they can help out, and by the "enterprise" Linux distributors as part of their service agreements with their customers.
If your company is worried about NDA issues surrounding your device's specifications, we have arranged a program with OSDL/TLF's Tech Board to provide the legal framework where a company can interact with a member of the kernel community in order to properly assure that all needed NDA requirements are fulfilled.
Now your developers will have more time to work on drivers for all of the other operating systems out there, and you can add "supported on Linux" to your product's marketing material.
This offer is in effect for all different types of devices, from USB toys to PCI video devices to high-speed networking cards. If you manufacture it, we can get Linux drivers working for it.
Ouch, I wonder if that's IBM's way of Kicking Microsoft's Teeth in over Drive Support. Greg Kroah, and by extension of IBM by employment, stating that they can get Linux Drivers working for any hardware?
Wow... that's all I can say.
Monday, January 29, 2007
Vista ... Service Pack 1?
Now, I'd like for people to note that this blog post is being made on January 29th. Microsoft Windows Vista has not yet actually been released to the public. That will happen tomorrow, on Janurary 30th.
http://www.vistasp1.net/
http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=208
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=17030
http://apcmag.com/5098/microsoft_kick_starts_vista_sp1
So, then, why are there already at least 3 stories, and one dedicated site, talking about Service Pack 1 for Vista? The operating system isn't even out yet and there is already talk about fixing known issues with the OS, known problems with public exploits, and a laundry list of other issues.
On top of that the fixes for some "Fatal Errors have Occurred" are planned for a second half of the year launch. Meaning, after August.
This is, perhaps, one of the most disconcerting events surrounding Vista that I have seen. Never minding the inherent Digital Rights Re-Movement inherent to the system. This also is not unusual for Microsoft. The first Microsoft Windows NT5 system, Windows 2000, had over 6000 known and documented bugs that Microsoft publicly refused to address or fix before and after the Operating System's launch. The second Windows NT5 system, Windows Xp, added to the list of known issues that Microsoft just wasn't going to do anything about.
So, Microsoft has a long history of shipping their OS's with lots of known bugs, refusing to fix those bugs, unless forced to later.
Remind me again why any sane person is going to buying Vista?
http://www.vistasp1.net/
http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=208
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=17030
http://apcmag.com/5098/microsoft_kick_starts_vista_sp1
So, then, why are there already at least 3 stories, and one dedicated site, talking about Service Pack 1 for Vista? The operating system isn't even out yet and there is already talk about fixing known issues with the OS, known problems with public exploits, and a laundry list of other issues.
On top of that the fixes for some "Fatal Errors have Occurred" are planned for a second half of the year launch. Meaning, after August.
This is, perhaps, one of the most disconcerting events surrounding Vista that I have seen. Never minding the inherent Digital Rights Re-Movement inherent to the system. This also is not unusual for Microsoft. The first Microsoft Windows NT5 system, Windows 2000, had over 6000 known and documented bugs that Microsoft publicly refused to address or fix before and after the Operating System's launch. The second Windows NT5 system, Windows Xp, added to the list of known issues that Microsoft just wasn't going to do anything about.
So, Microsoft has a long history of shipping their OS's with lots of known bugs, refusing to fix those bugs, unless forced to later.
Remind me again why any sane person is going to buying Vista?
Sunday, January 28, 2007
MSI: Screwing up hardware once again.
Back when ATi first launched the Radeon Xpress chipset, i went out of my way to get one of the motherboards for AMD's Socket 754 Athlon64 processor. Reason why is that I already had a couple Socket 754 chips, and Asus's K8V-Deluxe was starting to get a little, funky, with stability. The Radeon Xpress, in addition to being newer, was proving to be an overclocking monster, easily keeping pace with Nvidia's Nforce Solutions.
So, when I went shopping, the only Socket 754 Radeon Xpress motherboard was MSI's RS480M. Got it in, and was promptly horrified by it. MSI didn't just have limited voltage controls, there were NO voltage controls at all. DDR 400mhz memory that ran at timings of 2,2,2,5 in the old Asus K8V-Deluxe, would only run at the stable speeds of 3,3,3,8. This isn't something that should happen with Athlon64 chips where the memory controller is on the processor, not on the motherboard. One last niggling problem was the location of the BIOS clear Dip-Switch, which was nestled right behind the front panel (power on, reset, hard-drive light) connectors. It was hands down one of the worst 3rd party computer motherboards I have worked with. That also ignores the speed issues with the ATi SB400 and SB450 chipsets, which had lousy Serial ATA and USB 2.0 transfer speeds.
Okay, so recently a client decided to go with an Apeiva X-Qpack case, something I've talked about before on this blog. I like it because of it's small size, and you can use standard add-in parts.
Because of my success with Asus's P5RD2-VM, a Radeon Xpress chipset, my client also elected to go with Radeon Xpress, but for Athlon64 Socket AM2.
Again, the only motherboard in this catagory, was from MSI. The K9AGM-FID. Now, having dealt with many other motherboard manufacturers before, it is fairly standard practice that when somebody launches a fairly horrible motherboard (like the RS480M), any further editions in the line-up generally have those issues resolved.
Nope. Not with MSI. The K9AGM motherboard shares the same layout as the old RS480M, which means the BIOS switch is still in one of the worst places I've ever seen a BIOS switch placed. And like the RS480M there are absolutely no voltage controls what-so-ever on the motherboard. Yes, that is right. No voltage controls on a Chipset that is designed explicitly to have excellent voltage controls.
Okay, so, why do Voltage controls matter anyways? Are not those controls only used to Overclock? No. The problem in this case is that my client also purchased a full gig of DDR2 800mhz Memory from Geil with timings of 4,4,4,12. Yes, the problem from the RS480M is mirrored in the K9AGM. The memory does not run at the rated timings. Rather, the memory will only run at 5,5,5,15. This is a significant problem on Socket AM2, where that timing difference means a consistent performance loss around 10%-15%. The problem is, the voltage that the K9AGM thinks the memory needs is not the voltage the memory needs.
Now, I for one am disgusted. I know that Radeon Xpress is a killer overclocker on both Intel and AMD platforms. I've worked with a couple of ATX motherboards also using the same Radeon Xpress as the K9AGM where I've gotten great overclocks.
Now, what MSI needs to do, and understand this is not a "would be nice if they did it," it is a "absolutely you are releasing this next week" is update the bios for the K9AGM to include the required voltage controls. Now, I don't frankly care if they are not as extensive as the controls found on BioStar's T-Force series. I really don't. I do care though about actually having something to work with.
So, when I went shopping, the only Socket 754 Radeon Xpress motherboard was MSI's RS480M. Got it in, and was promptly horrified by it. MSI didn't just have limited voltage controls, there were NO voltage controls at all. DDR 400mhz memory that ran at timings of 2,2,2,5 in the old Asus K8V-Deluxe, would only run at the stable speeds of 3,3,3,8. This isn't something that should happen with Athlon64 chips where the memory controller is on the processor, not on the motherboard. One last niggling problem was the location of the BIOS clear Dip-Switch, which was nestled right behind the front panel (power on, reset, hard-drive light) connectors. It was hands down one of the worst 3rd party computer motherboards I have worked with. That also ignores the speed issues with the ATi SB400 and SB450 chipsets, which had lousy Serial ATA and USB 2.0 transfer speeds.
Okay, so recently a client decided to go with an Apeiva X-Qpack case, something I've talked about before on this blog. I like it because of it's small size, and you can use standard add-in parts.
Because of my success with Asus's P5RD2-VM, a Radeon Xpress chipset, my client also elected to go with Radeon Xpress, but for Athlon64 Socket AM2.
Again, the only motherboard in this catagory, was from MSI. The K9AGM-FID. Now, having dealt with many other motherboard manufacturers before, it is fairly standard practice that when somebody launches a fairly horrible motherboard (like the RS480M), any further editions in the line-up generally have those issues resolved.
Nope. Not with MSI. The K9AGM motherboard shares the same layout as the old RS480M, which means the BIOS switch is still in one of the worst places I've ever seen a BIOS switch placed. And like the RS480M there are absolutely no voltage controls what-so-ever on the motherboard. Yes, that is right. No voltage controls on a Chipset that is designed explicitly to have excellent voltage controls.
Okay, so, why do Voltage controls matter anyways? Are not those controls only used to Overclock? No. The problem in this case is that my client also purchased a full gig of DDR2 800mhz Memory from Geil with timings of 4,4,4,12. Yes, the problem from the RS480M is mirrored in the K9AGM. The memory does not run at the rated timings. Rather, the memory will only run at 5,5,5,15. This is a significant problem on Socket AM2, where that timing difference means a consistent performance loss around 10%-15%. The problem is, the voltage that the K9AGM thinks the memory needs is not the voltage the memory needs.
Now, I for one am disgusted. I know that Radeon Xpress is a killer overclocker on both Intel and AMD platforms. I've worked with a couple of ATX motherboards also using the same Radeon Xpress as the K9AGM where I've gotten great overclocks.
Now, what MSI needs to do, and understand this is not a "would be nice if they did it," it is a "absolutely you are releasing this next week" is update the bios for the K9AGM to include the required voltage controls. Now, I don't frankly care if they are not as extensive as the controls found on BioStar's T-Force series. I really don't. I do care though about actually having something to work with.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)