Peeve Farm

g r o t t o 1 1

Peeve Farm
Breeding peeves for show, not just to keep as pets

Brian Tiemann
Silicon Valley-based purveyor of a confusing mixture of Apple punditry and political bile.

btman at grotto11 dot com

Read These Too:

InstaPundit
USS Clueless
James Lileks
Little Green Footballs
As the Apple Turns
Entropicana
Cold Fury
Capitalist Lion
Red Letter Day
Eric S. Raymond
Tal G in Jerusalem
Secular Islam
Aziz Poonawalla
Corsair the Rational Pirate
.clue
Ravishing Light
Rosenblog
Cartago Delenda Est

« ? Blogging Brians # »

Book Plugs:

Buy 'em and I get
money. I think.
BSD Mall

Amazon Honor System

12/27/2004 -   1/2/2004
12/20/2004 - 12/26/2004
12/13/2004 - 12/19/2004
12/6/2004 - 12/12/2004
11/29/2004 -  12/5/2004
11/22/2004 - 11/28/2004
11/15/2004 - 11/21/2004
11/8/2004 - 11/14/2004
11/1/2004 -  11/7/2004
10/25/2004 - 10/31/2004
10/18/2004 - 10/24/2004
10/11/2004 - 10/17/2004
10/4/2004 - 10/10/2004
9/27/2004 -  10/3/2004
9/20/2004 -  9/26/2004
9/13/2004 -  9/19/2004
  9/6/2004 -  9/12/2004
8/30/2004 -   9/5/2004
8/23/2004 -  8/29/2004
8/16/2004 -  8/22/2004
  8/9/2004 -  8/15/2004
  8/2/2004 -   8/8/2004
7/26/2004 -   8/1/2004
7/19/2004 -  7/25/2004
7/12/2004 -  7/18/2004
  7/5/2004 -  7/11/2004
6/28/2004 -   7/4/2004
6/21/2004 -  6/27/2004
6/14/2004 -  6/20/2004
  6/7/2004 -  6/13/2004
5/31/2004 -   6/6/2004
5/24/2004 -  5/30/2004
5/17/2004 -  5/23/2004
5/10/2004 -  5/16/2004
  5/3/2004 -   5/9/2004
4/26/2004 -   5/2/2004
4/19/2004 -  4/25/2004
4/12/2004 -  4/18/2004
  4/5/2004 -  4/11/2004
3/29/2004 -   4/4/2004
3/22/2004 -  3/28/2004
3/15/2004 -  3/21/2004
  3/8/2004 -  3/14/2004
  3/1/2004 -   3/7/2004
2/23/2004 -  2/29/2004
2/16/2004 -  2/22/2004
  2/9/2004 -  2/15/2004
  2/2/2004 -   2/8/2004
1/26/2004 -   2/1/2004
1/19/2004 -  1/25/2004
1/12/2004 -  1/18/2004
  1/5/2004 -  1/11/2004
12/29/2003 -   1/4/2004
12/22/2003 - 12/28/2003
12/15/2003 - 12/21/2003
12/8/2003 - 12/14/2003
12/1/2003 -  12/7/2003
11/24/2003 - 11/30/2003
11/17/2003 - 11/23/2003
11/10/2003 - 11/16/2003
11/3/2003 -  11/9/2003
10/27/2003 -  11/2/2003
10/20/2003 - 10/26/2003
10/13/2003 - 10/19/2003
10/6/2003 - 10/12/2003
9/29/2003 -  10/5/2003
9/22/2003 -  9/28/2003
9/15/2003 -  9/21/2003
  9/8/2003 -  9/14/2003
  9/1/2003 -   9/7/2003
8/25/2003 -  8/31/2003
8/18/2003 -  8/24/2003
8/11/2003 -  8/17/2003
  8/4/2003 -  8/10/2003
7/28/2003 -   8/3/2003
7/21/2003 -  7/27/2003
7/14/2003 -  7/20/2003
  7/7/2003 -  7/13/2003
6/30/2003 -   7/6/2003
6/23/2003 -  6/29/2003
6/16/2003 -  6/22/2003
  6/9/2003 -  6/15/2003
  6/2/2003 -   6/8/2003
5/26/2003 -   6/1/2003
5/19/2003 -  5/25/2003
5/12/2003 -  5/18/2003
  5/5/2003 -  5/11/2003
4/28/2003 -   5/4/2003
4/21/2003 -  4/27/2003
4/14/2003 -  4/20/2003
  4/7/2003 -  4/13/2003
3/31/2003 -   4/6/2003
3/24/2003 -  3/30/2003
3/17/2003 -  3/23/2003
3/10/2003 -  3/16/2003
  3/3/2003 -   3/9/2003
2/24/2003 -   3/2/2003
2/17/2003 -  2/23/2003
2/10/2003 -  2/16/2003
  2/3/2003 -   2/9/2003
1/27/2003 -   2/2/2003
1/20/2003 -  1/26/2003
1/13/2003 -  1/19/2003
  1/6/2003 -  1/12/2003
12/30/2002 -   1/5/2003
12/23/2002 - 12/29/2002
12/16/2002 - 12/22/2002
12/9/2002 - 12/15/2002
12/2/2002 -  12/8/2002
11/25/2002 -  12/1/2002
11/18/2002 - 11/24/2002
11/11/2002 - 11/17/2002
11/4/2002 - 11/10/2002
10/28/2002 -  11/3/2002
10/21/2002 - 10/27/2002
10/14/2002 - 10/20/2002
10/7/2002 - 10/13/2002
9/30/2002 -  10/6/2002
9/23/2002 -  9/29/2002
9/16/2002 -  9/22/2002
  9/9/2002 -  9/15/2002
  9/2/2002 -   9/8/2002
8/26/2002 -   9/1/2002
8/19/2002 -  8/25/2002
8/12/2002 -  8/18/2002
  8/5/2002 -  8/11/2002
7/29/2002 -   8/4/2002
7/22/2002 -  7/28/2002
7/15/2002 -  7/21/2002
  7/8/2002 -  7/14/2002
  7/1/2002 -   7/7/2002
6/24/2002 -  6/30/2002
6/17/2002 -  6/23/2002
6/10/2002 -  6/16/2002
  6/3/2002 -   6/9/2002
5/27/2002 -   6/2/2002
5/20/2002 -  5/26/2002
5/13/2002 -  5/19/2002
  5/6/2002 -  5/12/2002
4/29/2002 -   5/5/2002
4/22/2002 -  4/28/2002
4/15/2002 -  4/21/2002
  4/8/2002 -  4/14/2002
  4/1/2002 -   4/7/2002
3/25/2002 -  3/31/2002
3/18/2002 -  3/24/2002
3/11/2002 -  3/17/2002
  3/4/2002 -  3/10/2002
2/25/2002 -   3/3/2002
2/18/2002 -  2/24/2002
2/11/2002 -  2/17/2002
  2/4/2002 -  2/10/2002
1/28/2002 -   2/3/2002
1/21/2002 -  1/27/2002
1/14/2002 -  1/20/2002
  1/7/2002 -  1/13/2002
12/31/2001 -   1/6/2002
12/24/2001 - 12/30/2001
12/17/2001 - 12/23/2001

Sunday, January 2, 2005
04:55 - Welcome to... whatever	(top)
I hate when that happens: I'm working up a post in my head, and I've got some great illustrative example I want to use in it somewhere, and I flesh out the whole post to support that one example (rather than the other way around)... and then, when it comes time to actually write the thing, I forget to mention the example I had in mind. See, in this post, I mentioned a phenomenon I called "Cargo Cult software"�and yet I managed to forget to point out one of the most obvious examples of it that I'd seen, of a concept that was designed on one platform for a specific engineered user-experience purpose, and then was adapted for use on a second platform with seemingly the same function but with no clear understanding of the principle behind the feature's existence in the first place. The example of which I speak is the startup sound. And yes, the original feature I have in mind is the chime on the Mac, the bonggg sound that you hear as soon as you turn on the machine. (Incidentally, as Mac guys know, various generations of Mac models have had different startup chimes over the years, starting with the simple square-wave "beep" of the original 128K Macintosh, proceeding through several variations that added harmony and progressively more aurally interesting chords, including the weird suspended one on the Performa 6100 series and the fanciful echoey one on the Twentieth Anniversary Mac, to the deep full-chested one we've had for several years now�and we're due for an update, don't you think? See Mactracker for this and other information for Apple history obsessives.) The purpose of the startup chime (SGI had one too, and first) was to tell the user that the power was on and the machine was about to start booting. It says that the initial POST checks have passed and the motherboard is viable. (There's a "death chime" if the POST fails, too�or at least, there was in earlier Macs. So very sad-sounding.) It tells the user something concrete. Now, from a user-engineering perspective, there are two useful places to have a sound play during startup of your computer: a) at power-on, and b) when your user environment is ready to accept input. Apple chose to put their chime at power-on, but they could just as easily have put it at the "system ready" point�it would have been plenty useful to the user. But where they did put it makes sense. It means the basic hardware is working. It means you've begun the boot process. But then Microsoft added a startup sound in Windows 95. They didn't put it in at power-on time, because they couldn't. But neither did they put it at the next most logical place, the "system ready" point, where the Desktop is done setting up and the cursor can let you drive. No�they put it, for reasons that are fathomable only to those in the inner sanctum of the Redmond war room, at the beginning of the user login process, after OS boot has completed. What does "The Microsoft Sound (by Brian Eno).wav" tell the user? Apparently, that "the system has completed an indeterminate segment of a long boot process, and will be ready for you to use after another indeterminate period." How is this useful? You hear this sound, and instead of it signalling to you that you have either succesfully accomplished something or are now able to start doing something, it tells you... precisely nothing. Except that your speakers are on. This is what I mean when I say "Cargo Cult software". Did Microsoft have any understanding of why Apple put in a startup chime? I don't blame them for being too limited by generic PC hardware to be able to affect anything at the immediate power-on stage, so they can hardly have been expected to put a sound there; but couldn't they have made their ethereal synthesized musical phrase occur at a time that's useful to the user even slightly�namely, say, the "ready to accept input" phase? That would have demonstrated that they understood the purpose of the feature, and weren't just copying a Mac bell and/or whistle for the cynical reason that they had to impress the rubes in Radio Shack into thinking Windows 95 was just like a Mac. This is where so much of the derision aimed at Microsoft from within the Mac camp tends to come from. Mac-heads generally can see the user-experience rationales for the design decisions made by Apple. It's not that we resent Microsoft's copying them; that's sort of expected, and we can hardly begrudge them doing what any competitor in the free market would do. But it's when they do it blindly and without apparent thought, or when they do it by copying the feature's basic functionality but changing some trivial element of it that ends up making their motives look self-conscious and patronizing (like calling it "Recycle Bin" instead of "Trash"), one can't help but curl a lip a bit. It's things like that that make otherwise gracious and tolerant and practicality-minded computer geeks rant and rail idealistically about how much better the computing world could have been oh, if only we didn't so readily accept the mediocre and fail to demand the best, and so on ad nauseam. Now, don't get me wrong: I think Microsoft's engineers are doing the best they can, down at the individual level; the company is full of geniuses. But they're having to deal with a corporate culture that was ossified back before Windows 95 was even in the planning stages, and now has become impossibly strangulated by its own size and labyrinthine backward-compatibility-constrained processes, such that the company couldn't produce a charismatic public-relations figure like Steve Jobs if it tried�and the only facsimile thereof that they have is bewilderingly embarrassing. With Internet Explorer stagnant, Windows' next major version being repeatedly delayed into the indefinite future, and once-grandiose initiatives fizzling or meeting with intense skepticism, one can't long avoid the impression that Microsoft's upper-level designers and planners are doing little more than waving their arms around and chanting a lot of mystical incantations, in the hopes of hitting on some lucky breakthrough that they can sell to an awestruck public. It also makes one wonder, the longer they keep fruitlessly trying, whether a computing platform based on demonstrable vision evident in every trace and screw is destined never to dominate the market�but only to be a niche player, marginalized by whoever is able to market a passable simulacrum the cheapest. But that's an emerging market for ya: nobody knows, and nor will we until this is all in texbooks read by our great-grandkids in grade school.