Tag Archives: Comparison

The Internet – A Small Town in Cyberspace

Posted on by
Internet Cafe

Users at an internet cafe in China

The internet is a community like any other town in the world.  It has people, transportation, communication, media, and many other features of actual cities and towns.  The people that spend their time working and playing online have developed relationships with others in a way that people become friends in real life (I hate saying “in real life” too, because despite some arguments The Internet IS “real life”.  It just takes place in a different locale – anyways, I digress).

Transportation

Google is the backbone of Internet transportation, serving as the largest central hub for directing traffic.  There are other modes of transportation such as MSN, Yahoo, or the once defunct, rising once again Ask.com.  Unlike our physical world, we can transport ourselves directly to a new address.

We can also move fluidly from one website to another – each link becoming a road, moving away from where we were last.  I suppose some peoples’ goal would be to get as many roads leading to their house or place of business.  Others may even charge a toll to use their roads (subscription services).

Friends & Communication

The amazing thing about this new world is that the barrier for entry to communicate is extremely low.  Anyone can get their 15 minutes of fame by creating the next most popular viral video.  We can build relationships with people that we have never met in person before.  People even work for businesses from the other side of the world without ever setting foot in their physical offices.

We can build, maintain, and document our relationships with others on our websites, through Facebook, or through a much lesser known standard: XFN.  Sharing information with friends in our community is extremely easy – and almost overwhelming at times.  Many people blog, and those blogs can be aggregated to one place through RSS, putting so much information at our fingertips.

We talk through chat, web conferencing, and internet telephony like Skype.  Any person can stand at their podium on streaming sites like USTREAM or Justin.tv and talk to their viewers, not unlike a person standing at a podium in Central Park.  People can even get together for a quick soccer game in our virtual community.

Media

The new newspaper is Twitter and the new televisions are YouTube and Hulu.  Social media is adding new dimensions to media and news is being reported and shared at alarming speeds.  I find it amazing how quickly an Amber Alert can permeate Twitter even if it’s fake.

It’s interesting to see how traditional media is still having trouble keeping up and people that can adapt are taking advantage of that gap.  Internet performance marketers all over the world are stepping up and representing huge corporations and usurping advertising dollars from the traditional power houses.  This new media is so enticing for business, because compensation is based entirely on performance – much like 100% commission sales people.  No, it’s not like that.  It is that.  Businesses ALWAYS have an unlimited budget for positive returns on ROI.

So what other ways does the Internet seem like a small town to you?  or a big town?

Goals vs. Resolutions

Posted on by

measureGoals and resolutions are not the same thing.  Let’s look at their definitions as advertised via dictionary.com:

goal

–noun
1. the result or achievement toward which effort is directed; aim; end.
2. the terminal point in a race.

res⋅o⋅lu⋅tion

–noun
1. a formal expression of opinion or intention made, usually after voting, by a formal organization, a legislature, a club, or other group. Compare concurrent resolution, joint resolution.
2. a resolve or determination: to make a firm resolution to do something.
3. the act of resolving or determining upon an action or course of action, method, procedure, etc.
4. a solution, accommodation, or settling of a problem, controversy, etc.

What’s the difference?

When you resolve to do something, you are setting up an action that you will carry out without measurable results.  For example: “I will exercise more this year,” “I will lose weight,” “I will spend more time at home,” etc., etc.  A goal is the vessel by which you take a resolution and define a measurable outcome.

What this means to me:

Every new year, I define a set of goals for the year, both personally, and for my business.  I express those goals for my business through an annual review of the business plan – a document defining my finite goals for the year, next three years, ten years, and life of the company.  I define my personal goals here on this blog.  All of the goals I set for myself follow a specific format.

Formatting a Goal

I use a simple acronym for defining my goals: SMART.  Smart stands for:

  • Simple
  • Measurable
  • Attainable
  • Realistic
  • Timelined

For instance, looking at my previous post: My Goals for 2009, we can pick out the goal: “Put $10,000 into my IRA.”  This goal is simple because I only need to do one thing.  Tracking it isn’t complicated.  It is measurable.  Each dollar I put in is a measurable unit.  It’s attainable.  I’m pretty sure I can do this if I hold myself to it.  It’s realistic.  I’m not putting more than I make into my IRA.  It has a timeline, because these are my 2009 goals, I have until Dec. 31, 2009 to complete them.

Following Through

Goals are only useful if you follow through.  I like to set goals far enough in advance and broad enough that if I fall short for a couple days, I can recover.  I like to make “thermometers” to track how close I am to acheiving goals as well.  I can organize all of my thermometers into a dashboard of sorts and rate myself on my progress.  I can find places I fall short and work on improving those areas.

I hope this helps you turn your resolutions into goals and your goals into results.

Mac vs. PC vs. Windows vs. Linux vs. Huh?

Posted on by

Alright. I’ve finally decided to break down the pros and cons of Macs, PCs, Linux, Windows, etc. First off, I’d like to say that none of these platforms are apples to apples. Each one has advantages and disadvantages. There are also some interesting dynamics to some of the rivalries that some people just don’t think about. Every side in this debate has its elitist fanatics, which is fine by me. I like to play neutral. Each platform has its benefits and drawbacks. Finding the right combination of benefits and drawbacks is what will ultimately satisfy end users.

Macs

Macs are great stable products. For those of you that say they never freeze… you’re full of it. They do freeze, just like any other computer. They are probably LESS likely to freeze than something like Linux running on a top-of-the-line laptop, but fundamentally, you can expect the to freeze up periodically like ANY electronic device.

Macs run so well because the hardware and software are developed by the same company. This lends itself to a great end user experience, but winds up much like AOL (don’t get me started). Users are confined to the user experience outlined by apple, unless the occasional developer comes along and expands the experience (go Adobe!).

Unfortunately software is less prevalent on Macs for a few reasons: the first being the cost of the developers kit. Developing on the native Mac platform costs developers money, which doesn’t foster the kind of interest you see in other communities, such as the Linux community. The secondary reason software is less prevalent on Macs is simply a function of market share. Many developers just don’t see the right ROI from the Apple platform.

The function of market share that stifles development on the Mac platform also makes it less lucrative for hackers and other malicious deviants to develop harmful software targeted at Mac users. This helps increase stability on the platform, allowing for a better user experience. Trust me. If Apple had as much of a market share as Microsoft, they would have just as many problems with malicious software.

Overall, Macs are a great hardware / software combination, not unlike a cell phone or game console. Due to the lack of software available on the platform, they aren’t great for large business environments or niche users, especially in the accounting and legal fields.

PCs

As far as I’m concerned, a PC is just hardware. It’s a collection of standards that collectively make a “PC.” Windows, Linux, and yes Mac OS X (albeit glitchy) can all run on these systems. The debate between Macs and PCs is somewhat superficial in that it’s not apples to apples. It’s apples to potatoes. They’re not even in the same food group. Macs are essentially made up of the same standards based hardware that PCs are, but the scope of the hardware is much narrower and tested much more thoroughly to work with Apple operating systems.

Because the PC is an open platform, development is much more prevalent. Operating systems optimized for the open PC environment are much more flexible and consumers have more choice over where they would like to purchase their hardware. As a consumer, I can chose to buy hardware from Dell, HP, Gateway, or build a machine myself. If I want a Mac, I get one made by Apple. Sure, I can buy it from a reseller, but Apple made and distributed it.

Windows

Windows is a great operating system – despite what some may say. Windows XP is a great, stable operating system. Windows Vista, although it had a rough start, is coming along nicely. I like some of the new features in Vista, such as live switching to Administrator, the new performance monitor, and their integrated indexing / search. Now that driver support has gotten much better, Vista has my stamp of approval for home users. I almost trust it enough for businesses, but not just yet. As a general rule, I don’t recommend something for business until 18 to 24 months out.

Now this is where people tend to over generalize. Microsoft doesn’t compete directly with Apple – in that they don’t create hardware for Windows. I think that is an anti-trust thing, but I’m not sure. Microsoft actually benefits from some of the recent changes with OS X Leopard. When people run Boot Camp, they must purchase a copy of Windows to run on it. Microsoft still collects those revenues. I’d love to try out a an Apple running OS X Leopard with Boot Camp and Windows Vista, but alas I’m still too poor.

Linux

Oh Linux. This is probably the operating system with the most elitists (look in the comments), the most distributions, and the most bugs. It’s still not quite user friendly enough for home use, although Ubuntu comes close. Driver support sucks too. How is it that Linux thrives so well then? It’s free. It’s open. When configured correctly, it’s the most stable operating system for ultra specific applications.

To be honest, I’m not a huge fan of Linux, because when ever I try to do something it’s like pulling teeth. I usually try to do the “learn by immersion” thing every once in a while, but end up switching back to Windows because something just becomes impossible. That being said, I understand that it has some huge benefits. I use it for my web servers. It makes a great platform for Oracle and MySQL. It’s also great for creating specific machines that complete unique tasks on an on-going basis. I have one customer that has a machine that just checks an email box periodically and prints out what ever it receives (don’t even get me started on the paper waste thing).

Conclusion

Basically I think comparing all of the aforementioned is like comparing apples, potatoes, steak, and air. They’re all food, but after that, they all have benefits and drawbacks, but fundamentally they’re completely different. Please shoot holes this theory. Why is one better than the other?