A short little diddy since I haven't posted anything in awhile ... It's not finished yet; I'm still working on it. That's why it doesn't make too much sense yet. ;)

---

Remember as children
When we painted together?
It didn't matter if we were good;
We just enjoyed it.

Now we don't try
Because we feel useless;
We forget what we felt
When we were children.

Let's hold our hands together,
Close our eyes and paint the sky.
Together, you and I.

We don't need to be artists
To say we love each other.
We can paint a picture in the air
Without using our hands.

Lay in the grass,
Close your eyes with me.
Let's paint the sky.
Together, you and I.

An interesting thought hit me the other day. It may not seem interesting to anyone else, but considering this is my blog, I'll write about those things that interest me and me alone.

The thought I had spun off into so many other thoughts I'm not sure if I can remember everything that I wanted to say now that I'm ready to say it. I'm sure this has happened to everyone at one time or another, but it is still most disheartening. Also, because my first thought branched out into so many other thoughts, I hope I can make some organizational sense out of it all and write it down in a way that the reader can follow.

My original thought was quite trivial and, admittedly, simple. Basically, one morning right after I got up from bed a thought popped into my head: People shouldn't judge one another. Specifically, I suppose, the thought was that Christians shouldn't judge other people. Again, I know that seems like such a trivial and simple idea to have, but at the time it seemed rather complex. (Whether this was because it was early in the morning – a time when the world's most basic ideas can seem complex – or because it was actually a complex thought, I cannot say.) Perhaps this thought was an extension of a dream. Perhaps something that happened the day before triggered it. I really am not certain. However, it did stay with me for the remainder of my day and I contemplated it for quite some time.

To judge or not to judge – that is the question that faces many people, Christian or not. If we follow the Bible – or at least try to – then we should not judge other people because, we're told, that is ultimately God's job, not ours. Still, human nature gets the best of us and we'll judge someone for what they've done, what they're doing or what they're going to do. It's actually quite sad that most people believe Christians judge more than non-Christians. Certainly, this should not be the case. However, most the public would assume that Christians judge the homosexual, the abortionist or that girl next door that "gets around" with a heavy hand. As Christians, we should realize that we need to judge less.

I will talk to and befriend anyone, really. Sometimes people won't realize that I'm a Christian until after the casual relationship has gone on for a time. It's interesting to me how the dynamics of the relationship change after they realize my faith. Before knowing I was Christian, they might use language that would make their grandmothers squirm; however, after realizing my faith, they tone it down or follow up any swear words with a timid "sorry" as if I'm highly offended. As another example, people who would openly talk of their drug use (or other bad habit) preface their conversations with, "I hope you don't judge me for this".

What these individuals must not realize is that I'm not God. I'm just another human. Who am I to judge them? Taking that a step further, do they assume that because I'm Christian I'm somehow better – "cleaner" – than they are? I'm not. I don't care if some woman was high on heroin while cheating on her husband and the baby that followed was aborted and the whole ordeal for some reason or another caused her to turn lesbian and divorce her husband. I am no better than that person.

Did you hear me? I want to make sure you did because this is important in that most people wouldn't assume a Christian would admit this: I. Am. No. Better. Than. That. Person.

You see, sin is sin. And I don't care what you say, we've all sinned. So, we're all the same in that regard. God doesn't look upon one person more favorably than another because their sin is worse or better. It's us humans who say the murderer's sin is worse than the liar's sin, anyway. God says it's all the same.

So if we can agree that we've all sinned – we're all in the same "big fat screwups" pool – how can I say I'm better than another person? And if I judged another person, that's what I'd be saying. I would be condemning them because I found myself to be superior. But God doesn't think I'm superior, so who am I to say I'm superior? Therefore, I shouldn't judge. Moreover, I can't judge. It's impossible for me to do so. We're all the same, so how can I be superior to someone? How could I judge them? By judging someone else I only judge myself.

So that was the original thought I had. However, that thought lead me to think about other things. I will continue.

Christianity is so different from other religions. Many other religions and faiths are all about being a good person, or at least striving to be the best person any human can be. Then, many of those religions say that if you are the best person you can be, you will reach enlightenment, or Heaven, or you'll become a God or be reincarnated as something honorable. That sounds pretty good, and it's also nice knowing that you're in total control of your ultimate destiny and you're not leaving it up to some "distant" God. However, what is "good" and how do we know if we are being "good"? Most everyone tries to be a good person. They might open a door for someone, return a lost wallet or give a homeless guy some change. That's all great. What about the times that same person flips someone off in traffic, takes advantage of someone or lies to get their way? Do the three "good" acts balance out the three "bad" acts so the net effect is zero? So then one more "good" act would have to be done to be considered a "good" person? I don't know about all of you, but if that's the way it works I'm probably at some really big negative number. I'm sure of it. I'm sure I've done more bad things than good. And I consider myself a nice, good person.

You see, earlier I established that we're all screwups. I've never killed a person. I've never done drugs. I've never slept around. But I have done a whole lot of other things that are just as detestable. (To tell you honestly, it's much easier to think of the bad things I have done than the bad things I haven't done.)

So, to be fair, I doubt I would ever become a God. I'd probably be reincarnated as a worm or some bacteria people kill with Lysol spray. I'd never make it into Heaven. And I'd probably never reach enlightenment, whatever that is.

But I'm not too bummed out about all that, really. As a Christian, I accept that I'm a "bad" person and I still try to do my best to be a "good" person. But I can only make it so far. If Heaven is in the sky, and my goal is to make it to Heaven, I'd probably make it about 12 feet off the ground. Luckily, God's got really long arms, like, really long arms, and reaches out to lift me up the rest of the way.

Is this getting cheesy? Sorry. I'll wrap up this idea.

So, Christianity is different than other religions because it's not about what I alone can do. I'm not saying to myself, "Well, if I can just be a good enough person I'll make it." It's about realizing I'm a generally bad person (remember, I'm probably at some negative number on the "good-o-meter") but asking God to forgive me of my shortcomings. So, it's not about me and what I can do for myself. It's about what God can do for me. That's why the Christian faith is so different from many other religions.

And notice I said Christianity is a faith, not a religion. Religion outlines what a person has to do – what motions one has to go through – to reach Heaven or enlightenment or whatever. A faith isn't about doing something to get into Heaven, like going to confession every day, meditating for hours, or praying at certain times every day. It's about believing – having faith – that God is able to forgive us for being a "bad" person, if we ask to be forgiven. A faith says, "God can forgive me for being a generally bad person if I ask," not "I'll be forgiven for being a bad person if I do this, that and the other thing." I hope that all makes sense.

Another thought I had was one that doesn't need much explaining, but it was worth mentioning. I know there are people out there who feel extremely guilty as individuals. I've talked to them before. They might try to be good people but they realize that they just aren't. Although this usually depresses them, in reality it's a good thing. Many people go through life thinking they're a genuinely good person without ever coming to the realization that at their fundamental core of being, they're really not. At least the person who realizes they're not a good person isn't living some sort of a lie. I'd rather know I was a bad person than think I was a good person when I really wasn't. At least if you realize you're a bad person you have the opportunity to do something about it.

From now on, if anyone ever says to me, "I'm a bad person," I think I'm just going to respond, "You're no worse than me." We're all in this together.

Anyway, that is all for now. I can't remember anything else that I wanted to say, even though I know there was much more. Every time I try to think of it, it gets harder and harder to piece it together. So, I'm going to leave it alone.

Perhaps it will come to me again some morning when I least expect it ...

Thanks for reading – comments for or against, or neutral, are all appreciated.

A 14-year-old girl's boring day at school was recently interrupted when she was pulled out of her high school class by the Secret Service for questioning. That certainly doesn't happen every day. From what I've heard, the girl posted a picture of President Bush with a knife through his hand and the words "KILL BUSH" above it on her MySpace page. Making threats against the President of the United States is against federal law. Obviously this girl was not aware ... or she didn't care. Either way, that's dumb. After questioning, the Secret Service decided to not press charges against her. That's too bad. It would have taught her a lesson.

---

*sigh* I'm tired of 13- to 17-year-olds taking a strong stance on political issues. Ninety-nine percent of the time they are just rehashing whatever views their parents and/or peers have and aren't really analyzing situations on their own to come to their own conclusions. Before a child gains a truly independent mind (which typically happens anywhere from ages 18 to 21) they shouldn't be flaunting their views on anything since they don't truly own their ideas.

That's not to say I don't believe they are entitled to their own opinions. I just don't think those opinions should be flaunted.

Call me a suppressor of free speech... I'm entitled to my own opinion.

Actually, I'm not gay and I don't like men. I just wanted to get your attention...

However, what I want to write about involves gays. Gays and Christians, actually. Scary stuff, no?

In all seriousness, I'm very sick and tired of Christians speaking out so passionately against gays. What is up with that? I know, I know. God doesn't approve of homosexuality. This is true, and it is stated in the Bible. However, God also doesn't approve of stealing. Or lying. Or cheating. Why don't Christians have the same passion to speak out against those things? A sin is a sin and being gay is, in my mind, no worse in God's eye than telling a little ol' white lie. If God doesn't single out a particular sin more than others, why should we?

---

There was a gay pride rally and walk during the summer months in Old Sacramento. Hundreds and hundreds of gays and gay supporters showed up. Among the attendees was also the Otterstads and their infamous self-proclaimed "truth truck." They were, as usual, speaking out against being gay with the passion and fervor they always seem to have. Their signs and speech were all viewed as "hate speech" and, of course, does nothing to further the cause they wish to further.

My church, Capital Christian Center, also attended. What were they doing there? Well, it was a hot day and they were handing out water bottles. They were approached at one point by an attendee who, after eyeing the truth truck, asked, "If Jesus was here today, what do you think he would do?"

What might you assume the response would be? Would Jesus be screaming out that gays are going to go to Hell? Would he flash around signs with condemning words that would offend people?

The response to the question was a simple one. The person being asked thought for a brief moment then stated with confidence, "We bet Jesus would be handing out water bottles, too."

And I firmly believe that. Jesus was love. Jesus is love. I don..t see the truth truck as being very loving. Jesus acted out of love. I don..t see the Otterstads acting much like Jesus.

Christians need to remember who they should be modeling.

From a news report by Marcey Brightwell, taken from SacBee.com:

An immigrant himself, [Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger] said immigrants should work hard, learn English and immerse themselves in America.

"And that is very difficult for some people to do, especially, I think, for Mexicans," Schwarzenegger said. "Because they are so close to their country here, so they try to stay Mexican but try to be in America, so there is this kind of back and forth. And what I am saying to the Mexicans is, you've got to go and immerse yourself, and assimilate into the American culture, and become part of the American fabric. That is how Americans will embrace you."

Just imagine the turmoil that caused.

But you know what? I'm sick of all the "politically correct police" out there. Sure, he may have singled out a certain race and put a blatant stereotype upon it, but does anyone listen to what he is actually saying?

Assimilation is an extremely important idea that needs to be exercised by the various cultures that have come to America. Does assimilation mean they need to leave their culture at the border, buy a big SUV and eat at least 3 meals a week at McDonalds? No. It does entail learning to read, write and speak English and learning and abiding by the laws of the land. If an immigrant is unwilling to do that, they can't be an American and should go back to the country from whence they came, harsh as that may sound.

I'm tired of America not helping cultures assimilate by creating bilingual materials. All this does is promote the idea that they don't have to learn English. A common language is what holds a country together. Without it, a country's strength is compromised.

Should Arnold have singled out one race and placed a stereotype on them? Maybe not in public, but he's not a politician. He's a real person. He speaks his mind. And he has a pretty good point worth consideration, even if he might offend a couple people.

And I hope to goodness this didn't offend anyone out there...

In this blog, my second of all time, I would like to discuss a couple of the differences between Apple computers and all the other computers out there that run Microsoft Windows. I also want to talk about Microsoft as a company. I would also like to hopefully dispel any myths that still exist that label Apple computers as "garbage" or as a "newbie" computer not intended for the power user. I warn you, though, it will probably be boring for 90% to 99.9% of the people out there.

First, let me give you some background information about myself in relation to all this. I have used computers since I was about eight years old, or at least somewhere around there. The first computer I laid hands on was a 286. I graduated to a 486 which is what I used most actively during my early childhood years. It had MS-DOS on it and ran at the break-neck speed of 33 MHz.

Sometime later I believe I got a Pentium 133 MHz system that had Windows for Workgroups 3.11 on it. It was this system that really sparked my interest being that it had a graphical user interface (GUI). This made it much easier to use in some respects but also made it easier to screw up since it encouraged exploration. And screw things up I did. But, contrary to the beliefs of some, this is not a bad thing. It's a good thing because it is one of the best ways to learn. It was in Windows 3.11 that I learned the basis of many years of Windows usage. At a very young age I became what I would declare as a beginning Windows power user. I knew the ins and outs of Windows 3.11 and could fix most problems with the system. Then Microsoft threw me a curve .. Windows 95.

One of my best friend's parent's at the time bought an IBM system (a Pentium 166 MHz with 64 MB of RAM if my memory serves me right) that came preinstalled with Windows 95. I went to his house the day after his parents set it up to check out the next version of Windows. Boy was I shocked. What had they done? In my mind, they ruined a perfectly good operating system. I didn't really like anything about it, and I also didn't like that I had to now re-learn most everything I knew about Windows as the way the operating system worked was nearly completely different. I especially didn't like that I saw a "Recycle Bin" floating around on the desktop. It was almost like I was looking at a Macintosh (which his parents also owned and I, for the most part, despised it). Over time, of course, I did learn to love the next version of Windows. I tinkered around in the new registry system and quickly learned its importance to the proper operation of Windows. Anyway, this is getting long. I'll try to speed things up. Soon enough I had Windows 95 at home and was, with my friend, helping fix other people's systems when they screwed them up. I was probably about 13 or so when I started doing this.

I continued to embrace Windows but I did have opportunities to use Apple computers off and on here and there. I found that the Apple systems were much too basic for me. It seemed like they were meant for someone who didn't know the ins and outs of computers and I felt they were certainly not for me -- a 13-year-old self-proclaimed power user. I also found the operating system (Mac OS) to be a bit cumbersome and not very intuitive in some respects. It didn't multitask well. It handled memory a bit strangely. And it was nearly impossible to troubleshoot on .. at least it was for me. I was a Windows guy. Windows was what I knew and loved. I wasn't familiar with, nor did I like, Mac OS.

Moving along quickly, I graduated to newer and faster systems and dabbled with AMD-based processors. I graduated to Windows 98, then Windows ME and finally ended up with a 1.4 GHz AMD Athlon with 512 MB or RAM running Windows XP Professional. By this time, I considered myself a Windows user for life -- a life I thought too short to dabble with some cheap, simple, unsophisticated operating system such as Mac OS. I wanted the operating system for the power user.By this time I was also building my own systems and swapping out parts to create the best computer for me possible. This simply couldn't be done with Apple computers. This just reinforced the fact in my mind that they were for newbies or inexperienced people.

However, it wouldn't be fair to not mention one thing. We have to go back a couple years, but in late 1998 and early 1999 I was beginning to hear about this thing called an iMac. I remember honestly thinking that it was kind of a cool, forward-thinking name before catching myself and telling myself, "You can't think that! You hate Apple!" which, in all honesty, I really did. Then, later, I saw these really cool commercials trying to advertise the iMac. They were basically white backgrounds with brightly colored iMacs flying around the screen in a synchronized fashion. Very well done, indeed. It was also around this time that I found myself getting into graphic design and I liked the modern design of the Apple commercials. I respected them for being so different and unique and looking so cool. It was very different from a typical computer company. This caused my heart toward Apple (as a company) to soften a bit but I continued to generally dislike the systems. I'd still stop whatever I was doing to watch the commercials though. Those were great.

In 2001 some big changes happened over in Cupertino, Calif., (where Apple is located) that were all under my radar at first, probably because I stayed pretty far away from anything Apple-related. Those two changes would end up being the two things that eventually made me into an Apple-lovin' Microsoft-hatin' guy .. but not without a fight. What were the changes? Mac OS X (10) and the iPod.

The first thing I caught word of was the iPod. I was an avid music lover and I already owned about 200 CDs. I had a CD case that could carry 24 CDs but the Law of Murphy would always prevail and I'd end up wanting to listen to something I left home that day. When this happened, I was pretty much out of luck. I had already converted most of my music into MP3s for easy listening on the computer and the idea that I could load up a device with all (or at least a good portion of) those MP3s and put it in my pocket for easy listening anywhere intrigued me. And, by the time I was seriously interested in the iPod, it was compatible with Windows, too. Perfect, except for that $499 price tag.

So there you have it. The iPod was the first Apple product I wanted. Really wanted. I did look at other options from Creative (so I could continue my anti-Apple campaign) but I kept coming back to the iPod. That thing was just too darn cool. By that time I was doing graphic design work regularly, too, and the minimalist design of the iPod and it's marketing materials really impressed me. They reminded me of the well-designed iMac commercials years earlier.

Sometime in 2003, a couple years after its initial release, I heard about OS X. I actually heard about it through a friend of mine who was a network administrator and a PC junkie. He used Windows and Unix but also stated he didn't mind Apple computers. I remember my reaction when I heard this. I was, in all honesty, in shock and complete disbelief. A Windows-lovin' Unix-usin' power user who liked Apple? When I questioned him (and asked if he was serious), all he did was send me a link to Apple's OS X website. I remember the first thing that caught my eye on the page. It was the word "Unix."

I, of course, had to investigate this further and what I found shocked me. Apple had reinvented their operating system, the old OS 9 that I despised and hated, from the ground up and built it around a rock-solid Unix core. That was different. I liked the idea of that.

From here it was a slippery slope into the world of Apple happiness. I was still really in to graphic arts and I loved a well-designed product. The design of OS X was excellent. It was a beautiful OS, if an OS can be called beautiful. It also had some awesome features that, when I found out about them, made me think, "Why doesn't Windows have this?" It was strange that such a large corporation such as Microsoft didn't think of some of the most simple, well thought out, intuitive features that OS X had. Being that it was built around Unix it was extremely stable. It handled memory well. It was fast and just got faster with each new release, even when using it on the same hardware. That was also something foreign to me, but it's a sign of a well-built, solid OS. Since when did Windows run faster with each new release? I, for one, had to keep upgrading my computer to run the next update to Windows.

Basically, Apple's OS X started picking away at my confidence with Windows. It got me questioning why I really stood so strongly by Windows. Why did I think it was the best OS ever? Why was I unwilling to open up my world and accept another OS? I had a lot of questions but few answers.

Next, as I learned more about OS X, I began to wish Windows had some of the great features that Apple had put into their OS. It seemed odd that some of the most basic features that made OS X so cool hadn't made their way into Windows. How could a huge corporation (Microsoft) throw millions of dollars into Windows R&D and still not think of this stuff? I began to think about the things that had changed since Windows 95 or 98. I thought of a few new things but nothing really ground breaking, inventive or brand new. All of this made me like Windows less and like Apple more.

And, by the way, I got an iPod around this time (from one of those free iPod deals online .. I wasn't going to pay one week's salary for that thing). Of course, that got me liking Apple even more since it ended up being even cooler than I thought it would be. It was smaller than I thought it would be and was packaged very well. It also had an awesome touch-sensitive scroll wheel that was unlike anything I had seen.

Well, where am I headed with all this? Basically, to be blunt, what I'm getting at is Windows is an inferior OS. That's the whole point, really. Apple is an OS built for tomorrow with features that are just too cool. Let me describe some of the cool features:

.. Spotlight search technology allows rapid real-time searches of data files, mail messages, photos, and other information, based on item properties and/or content. (Way faster and better than searching in Windows, although Microsoft liked the idea so they are copying it in Windows Vista.)

.. Dashboard supports small applications ("desktop widgets") that can be called up and dismissed in one keystroke. (Also something Microsoft thought was cool so they are trying to copy it Vista.)

.. ColorSync color matching built into the core drawing engine (perfect for the photographer or graphic artist, or for the home user that wants to make sure things print how they look on screen .. something that's nearly impossible without 3rd party software in Windows).

.. Exposé instantly displays all open windows as thumbnails for easy navigation to different tasks. It can also display all open windows as thumbnails from the current application and hide all windows to access the desktop. (This is a feature long-overdue in Windows .. it proves very useful)

.. Smart Folders allow for dynamically updated folders depending on a set criteria. (An awesome feature. You can, for instance, have a folder that displays only the MP3's on your computer with creation dates newer than two weeks. Then, all the new music you add to your computer is easily assessable. The options, though, are endless.)

.. A well defined set of Human Interface Guidelines followed by almost all applications giving them intuitive, consistent user interface and keyboard shortcuts. (While not that "cool" so to speak, it is nice because it allows a familiar experience using any application from within OS X. Windows Vista lacks this, and many reviews have stated there is no cohesive feel to Vista)

.. Automator: automates repetitive tasks without programming. (Hate doing simple things over and over again? Write an automated script to take care of it. Best thing about it is that it's super easy.)

There is tons more stuff I could list. There is tons of stuff that benefits the user that is behind the scenes and he or she doesn't even notice. Mac OS 10.5 (to be released) has virtual desktops and an awesome backup/restore program to get back some of those accidentally deleted or modified files, among other way-cool, yet-to-be-announced features.

Sure, Windows could do all this stuff. The problem is, though, that you'd have to buy tons of third-party applications to make it happen. Further complicating the issue is the fact that those applications won't work as seamlessly with Windows or with each other as they could since they will all be built by different people. With OS X you've got an OS that does way more than Windows ever could right out of the box. And it does it all beautifully because it was designed from the ground up to do what it does. You don't have to buy a different program or a "patch" to make it work differently. It works perfectly, right out of the box.

All of this, all of what I've been discussing, is what sold me on OS X. I'm actually annoyed by Windows now because all of its limitations have been exposed by the world's most advanced operating system, OS X. Me -- annoyed by Windows. It's almost like I've disowned my first and only child.

And to take that one step further, I'm actually sick of Microsoft. I don't think one creative piece of anything has come out of that company for a long time, even though they're throwing billions of dollars into R&D. That, to me, is a sign of a defunct company.

Take the XBox. That was just a rip off of the Playstation or Nintendo. It wasn't a new, inventive product. It wasn't forward thinking in any respects (besides the XBox Live deal, but even that wasn't truly a new idea).

Take Windows Vista (the successor to Windows XP). All that is is a cheap, "wannabe" imitation of OS X. So many ideas were stolen from OS X it's pathetic. I'm waiting for Apple to file a lawsuit against Microsoft. We'll see. Take, for instance, OS X's name for the GUI, Aqua. Microsoft put on their thinking caps and came up with a very creative, original name for their GUI: Aero. The similarities don't stop there. The look and feel of the OS, the Windows Vista logo, the blatant rip-off of Apple's Spotlight search and other various features in Vista are almost a direct copy of Apple's OS X. And don't take my word for it, many Windows Vista reviewers for different magazines and e-magazines have stated the same thing.

Microsoft's Zune. Again, a cheap rip off of the iPod (and a basic repackage of the Toshiba Gigabeat). And, although it does have some never-seen-before features, one has to ask, "Would I use these features regularly?" One such feature is the ability to send a song on your player to other Zune players wirelessly. It sounds cool on paper, but in real life situations, I doubt it will prove that useful (and it will probably kill battery life). Most of the time, I want to listen to my own music, not someone else's. If I'm with friends and someone wants to share a new band he or she just got, I can't see everyone whipping out their Zune players, popping in their ear buds and sitting down to listen to a music file sent to their players (talk about an anti-social situation). I think it's more likely they would hook the music player up to a stereo and play it while everyone hangs out. Just an opinion. Plus, you can only listen to a song that is beamed to you three times, then it's gone. Poof! On top of that, the Zune lacks any sort of cool functionality while using it (like something similar to a touch-sensitive scrolling wheel .. although, by the iPod-rip-off design, I think they want people to think it has the iPod's click wheel). Rather, it uses buttons. Buttons are so 2000. Plus the thing is built by Toshiba. Has anyone out there ever had a Toshiba product that, a.) worked right, and b.) lasted longer than 6 months? I'll wait to bash the Zune any more until it's actually released and I can get a first-hand impression, but Microsoft is ramping millions of these things and let's just say I highly doubt they will sell out. We'll see. I'm guessing Microsoft will net a huge loss. In fact, Microsoft is expecting a huge loss (and by huge, I quote Microsoft in stating it will be at least a hundred million dollars).

The Sacramento Bee recently (Oct. 1, 2006) ran an article on internet search engines (Focusing on Google, Yahoo! and Microsoft's Live Search) in which they stated Microsoft hoped to mimic Google's success by copying their search algorithms. Great plan, Microsoft. Live Search also ripped off Yahoo! Answers by creating "QnA" which is the same principle as Yahoo! Answers.

Well, after hearing all that, at least we find one thing Microsoft is good at: Ripping off other company's ideas.

Microsoft is failing. It may not show in numbers yet, but it will. Maybe not for five years, maybe not for 20 years, but they are failing. And, unfortunately for Microsoft, Windows Vista and Zune are likely not going to do a single thing to change the trend. The XBox 360 is going to fade into memory with Sony's Playstation 3 and Nintendo's Wii, both being released sooner (Nov. '06) than later and the former having extremely enhanced graphics capabilities and the latter having extremely unique game play. Unless Microsoft makes some major changes in the future, their influence in the PC and personal electronics market is going to diminish.

I haven't heard many positive comments toward Windows Vista, yet I've heard numerous negative comments. I gave Microsoft the benefit of the doubt when Vista was still in Beta stages. But this thing is supposed to be released in a few months, and it is still just as bad as it was. Microsoft is now in the RC (release candidate) stages of Vista, and RC1 has been very disappointing.

Chris Pirillo, a Windows supporter and the former host of Tech TV's Call for Help, noted his impressions of Vista. He said, "... it's all about a cohesive user experience / user interface for me. Vista fails on most UI fronts. It doesn't look or behave similarly across any part of the operating system. Even more sad? That's by design, folks." He continued, "Vista is schizophrenic, and that disorder has been further enabled by the range of vigilante software development teams who are providing code to the core without cross-checking with other teams for UI consistency."

And development is probably only going to get worse since the head executive of the Vista project left for Amazon.com. I guess Microsoft wasn't paying him enough .. or he just didn't want to have his name tied to Microsoft's biggest failure to date (I suspect the latter).

Plus, Vista developers have anonymously stated in online forums and blogs that they are not going to use Vista once it's released because they find Mac OS X to be a superior OS. That's not what you want your developers saying if they're going to make a solid OS. They've also stated that they were asked.to look at OS X to get ideas to implement into Vista. Cheap.

Listen to what Scott Finnie, Computerworld's online editorial director, said about Vista in an article titled "20 Things You Won't Like About Windows Vista":

"It boils down to this: The software giant is favoring security and IT controls over end-user productivity. Don't get me wrong, security and IT manageability are very good things. But some of the people actually using the Beta 2 Vista software describe their experience as akin to that of a rat caught in a maze. Business and home users will be nonplussed by the blizzard of protect-you-from-yourself password-entry and 'Continue' boxes required by the User Account Controls feature, for example. Networking functions and settings are scattered all over the place. The same is true of what Windows XP calls Display Properties. By default, the main menus (you know, File, Edit, View, etc.) are turned off on Windows Vista folders, Internet Explorer 7 and several other programs and utilities that come with Vista. Listing 20 things you won't like about Windows Vista was unfortunately all too easy. The question is: Why couldn't Microsoft see this coming? Make no mistake, the new Windows lacks a gotta-have-it feature."

Finnie continued, "Where does Windows Vista fit among many of the PC-based operating systems of today and the last couple of decades? With Beta 2 running on multiple test units, I feel comfortable predicting that Windows Vista will not outpace Mac OS X Tiger for overall quality and usability. It's hard to beat Apple's top-notch GUI design grafted onto an implementation of Unix variant BSD. Mac OS X has excellent reliability, security and usability. That isn't to say that the user interface wouldn't gain if Apple adopted some other best ideas of the day, but Apple has the best operating system this year, last year and next year. It'll be interesting to see what the company delivers in its 10.5 Leopard version of Mac OS X. Meanwhile, I'm placing Windows Vista as a distant second-best to OS X."

Finally, Finnie had to ask a question: "So, why is the year-old Mac OS X Tiger so much better than Windows Vista, which Microsoft won't even ship before January 2007? It isn't that Apple has put more effort into its operating system; Microsoft has mounted a gargantuan effort on Windows Vista. It's that the two companies have very different goals. I've come to believe that Microsoft has lost touch with its user base. Everywhere you look, Microsoft has copied things that Apple has offered for quite some time in OS X ... More than 15 years later, Microsoft is still following Apple in operating system design and bundled materials ... I have no problem with Microsoft copying Apple's or any other company's best interface designs. We all win when that happens, and I wish Apple would steal the best things Microsoft does right back. What's really strange is when a company lifts good ideas and makes them worse, not better."

Ouch. That hurts.

Anyway, I'm not going to ramble on about things any longer. I've written enough. The point is that Mac's aren't looser systems anymore. They have evolved. They're also not more expensive than Dell or HP systems. Sure, you can get a $400 Dell, but it's a piece of garbage. Buying a Dell comparable to a Mac will cost you more than the Mac would. That $400 Dell will also come preloaded with enough garbage on it to sink a battleship (or your system). That's why they can sell it for so cheap .. they get money from AOL, Earthlink, and whoever else gets to put their junk software on the computer. Mac's come preloaded with software, too, but it's all from Apple and it's all stuff you'll want or need to use. It's called the iLife Suite and it's just another reason Mac's are a great value.

Ok, ok, enough. I'm done. Now go GET A MAC!.

I'm writing a blog post. Have I ever before? No. But somehow I feel as though my life would not be complete without writing at least one before I die. Everyone says blogs are cool, so they must be. I want to be a follower. I'd like to be a product of culture. That's why I'm writing this blog. In fact, that's why I became a MySpace member. I now feel as though I fit in. I belong in this life, now.

Thank you, MySpace, for giving my life purpose and meaning.

(It is my hope the reader can sense the sarcasm in this little blog of mine... I'm gonna let it shine...)