Tech Q & A

– Submitted by Karen O’Koniewski

A: Old computers and peripherals contain a lot of substances and materials that can be bad for the environment. Depending on your locale, it may be illegal to throw old technology in your normal trash. So ideally, I would recommend that you recycle your old technology. However, finding a company to recycle old technology can be difficult. Fortunately, a familiar business name is now making technology recycling very easy.

Office Depot has recently begun a technology recycling service. For a small fee, you can purchase a box from your local Office Depot store. You can fill this box with almost any type of old technology parts, such as computers, monitors, keyboards, printers, etc. There are a few exceptions of what you can recycle for safety reasons, most notably cracked monitors. Then you bring the box back to Office Depot and they ship it off for you. Your only cost is the original purchase of the box. A small box costs $5, a medium box $10, and a large box $15. Be sure to stop by your local Office Depot for more details.

If you have need to recycle a large amount of older computer equipment, don’t hesitate to contact me. I know of other companies that cater to larger recycling projects as well.

– Submitted by Andy Bridgeman of The Bridgeman Agency

A: Sometimes, there is no real difference! Other times, the features can make all the difference! It just depends on a person’s point of view and what features they are looking for.

A PDA (Personal Digital Assistant) basically performs 2 main functions – organizing your contacts and calendar. They can also keep notes and do other functions, and can be expanded with third party software. The two most popular types of PDAs run the Palm OS and Windows Mobile OS. Some PDAs also have wireless networking available, so they can do things like browse the web or check e-mail.

A smartphone is basically a PDA combined with a cellular phone. Obviously, a smartphone can do all the functions of a PDA and a cell phone. Additionally, the combination of the two types of devices offers some advantages, such as being able to look up a contact and dial them directly, without needing to manually punch in their phone number. Another advantage is being able to use the cellular provider’s wireless data network to use the Internet from anywhere they have coverage. Popular types of smartphones include the Treo and various Windows Mobile-based devices.

A Blackberry is a specific brand of smartphone that gained popularity in the late 90’s early 2000’s. What set the BlackBerry apart at the time (and is still somewhat true today) was its ability to do real-time remote e-mail. Users could have their e-mail delivered to their handheld device and send immediate replies. While today the BlackBerry brand devices are much more full-featured PDAs, when they first came out, they were primarily only e-mail devices with only rudimentary PDA functions and no phone functions at all. In fact, they looked like large pagers, nothing at all like a phone or PDA of today. Over time, the BlackBerry brand expanded to include cellular phone functions and are now pretty similar to Palm OS and Windows Mobile smartphones.

The iPhone is a new breed of smartphone. The main differences between the iPhone and other smart phones are the “desktop-like” Internet functions, as well as the touchscreen interface. For more info about the iPhone, you can read my previous articles about the iPhone (part I, part II).

The 2 questions most people have are, “should I get a PDA or smartphone”, followed by, “which one should I get?” In my opinion, if you spend a lot of time with both a cell phone and PDA, then a smartphone is probably a good idea. I personally think the Palm OS is simpler and easier to use than the Windows Mobile OS, so keep that in consideration when choosing between the two types of devices. As far as choosing a BlackBerry, their big advantage is the ability to do real-time e-mail. However, the real-time e-mail feature doesn’t necessarily work with all e-mail systems. You will need to check with your cellular provider and your e-mail system administrator (or ISP) to verify if the BlackBerry will be able to provide you with real-time e-mail. Other smartphones now have the ability to do real-time e-mail as well now, the same caveats apply as the BlackBerry. The smart thing to do is to try to test the different types of devices yourself before making a purchase to see if any of them are a better fit for you.

E-mail me your technology questions and have them answered in a future issue!

– submitted by many readers
A: The answer is always yes. What differs is the way you can do this, depending on what kind of Macintosh you have and how you want to run Windows. The first order of business is to identify what kind of processor your Macintosh has.

The older Macintosh processor technology still in common use today is the PowerPC. You can often identify Macs that use the PowerPC processor by name. Look for “Power Mac”, “PowerBook”, G3, G4, or G5. The newer processor technology Macs use today is the Intel processor. Yes, this is the same processor that most Windows computers use, which as I will explain later, is very beneficial to those who want to run Windows software on a Mac. Intel-based Macs do not include the “Power” moniker, so look for names such as “MacBook”, “MacBook Pro”, or “Mac Pro”. Some Macs, such as the iMac or Mac Mini do not reveal what kind of processor they use by name. To identify the processor in these Macs, choose “About this Mac” from the Apple Menu in the upper left corner. The informational window that follows will identify the processor.

If you have an older PowerPC-based Mac, your choices for running Windows software are somewhat limited. Your only real choice is emulation software, such as Virtual PC (http://www.microsoft.com/mac/products/virtualpc/virtualpc.aspx?pid=virtualpc). Emulation software basically runs a virtual Windows computer inside the Mac OS. Almost all Windows software will run in emulation, with a few exceptions, such as 3D games. While emulation software often gets a bad rap for being slow, it can be extremely useful for Windows software that is not particularly processor intensive.

If you have an Intel-based Mac, you have two main choices. The first option is the ability to boot your Mac directly into Windows. This is done with a technology from Apple called Boot Camp (http://www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/). With Boot Camp, your Mac becomes a full-fledged Windows machine, bypassing the Mac OS altogether. Since Windows is running “natively” on an Intel processor, just like in a regular Windows computer, it runs at full-speed, again just like a regular Windows computer. Boot Camp is useful for users who need to spend a significant amount of time in Windows, such as a user who uses Windows at work, but prefers the Mac OS at home or otherwise. Boot Camp is also useful for people who want to run Windows games on a Mac, since there is no performance penalty for running Windows in this way. The main drawback to Boot Camp is that because the Mac must be rebooted to switch between the Mac OS and Windows, it’s not particularly convenient for users who want to use both operating systems at the same time.

The second option for Intel-based Macs is ideal for users who want to use Windows software without rebooting the Mac. “Virtual machine” software, such as Parallels (http://www.parallels.com/en/products/desktop/) or VMWare Fusion (http://www.vmware.com/products/fusion/), run a virtual Windows computer inside the Mac OS. This is a similar idea to the emulation software for PowerPC processors. However, with these “virtual machine” products, only a small performance penalty is incurred, since Windows is running “natively” on the same Intel processors it would be on a regular Windows computer. Virtual machine products are useful for users who occasionally need to run Windows software on their Mac, or who want to use both Mac OS software and Windows software at the same time. The main drawback to virtual machine products is that more RAM is required since the Mac will be running two operating systems simultaneously. Also, compared to Boot Camp, the small performance penalty for running Windows in a virtual machine may be a minor drawback to some users.

The bottom line is that you shouldn’t feel that a Macintosh is not compatible with the Windows world. In fact, if you look at the Mac’s ability to run Mac, Windows, and UNIX software, it can actually run MORE software than any regular Windows computer. For users buying a new Mac, given the ability to run Windows, it is actually like getting two computers in one.

For all things Macintosh, Marcel is your expert.

– submitted by Susan Young, Glen Carbon, IL
A: One simple answer many people overlook is to buy an Apple Macintosh. Macs, of course, come with the Mac operating system, not Windows Vista. (Side note: modern Macs can run Windows Vista or XP as well – Macs are like 2 computers in one). However, most people asking this question are wanting to get a computer with Windows XP. For those people, here is the advice I’ve been giving.

The first thing to do is to stop shopping at “big box” stores for your computers. Without going into too much detail, the quality of computer you can purchase at your average retail store is suspect, and the level of service and support you can expect to receive is usually quite low. Step out of the mindset that computers can be bought and sold like paper clips or toothpaste. With the importance of computers in our everyday lives or businesses, a computer purchase should be done with care and planning, not browsing and impulse.

For most computer purchases, I recommend that you establish a relationship with a quality and reputable vendor local to you. Local vendors can customize your computer to your needs, including the choice of operating system that your computer will run. Quality vendors should use more reliable components, increasing your odds of trouble-free operation over the years. Finally, quality vendors should also provide responsive and hassle-free support policies, so if you do have problems with your hardware, they will rectify the situation quickly.

If for some reason a local vendor is not an option, Dell is the only large on-line vendor to actively offer the choice of Windows XP with most of their computers (at the time of this writing). Dell gives you this choice easily through their on-line store. Gateway and HP do have some models available with Windows XP, but you must call them and ask for this option. They do not publicize this or give you the option through their on-line stores. The last time I checked, there was often an additional charge from Gateway or HP to customize your computer with Windows XP. So Dell is the easy choice, but if you prefer another vendor, you will probably need to talk to them on the phone and be prepared to pay extra.

A few words of advice: if you do purchase a computer from a large on-line vendor, stay away from the cheapest models. They are cheap for a reason. Also, make sure you get at least 1 GB of RAM.

E-mail me your technology questions and have them answered in a future issue!

A: For the most part, if you are interested in wireless networking for Internet access, it doesn’t matter much which implementation you go with, as they are all faster than any Internet access commonly available. However, if you are interested in wireless networking to share files across a local network, then the latest “n” standards may be of interest to you.

The 802.11 standard defines the types of wireless networks we are commonly familiar with today. The original standard (802.11 without a letter behind it) was not commonly used in the mainstream. Released in 1997, it topped out at 2 Mbps/Sec.

802.11b was the first mainstream wireless network implementation, defined in 1999. It uses the 2.4 GHz frequency range and runs at 11 Mbps/sec. 802.11b eventually was termed “Wi-Fi” by the then newly created Wi-Fi Alliance.

Released in 2003, 802.11g was the next implementation in the 2.4 GHz frequency range, supporting 54 Mbps/sec. It is also backward compatible with 802.11b. Some proprietary implementations of 802.11g can support speeds of 108 or 125 Mbps/sec. The Wi-Fi Alliance updated the “Wi-Fi” term to include a letter indicating which standard is being referred to (i.e. Wi-Fi b or Wi-Fi g).

802.11n is the next in the line of 2.4 GHz family. Currently, the “n” standard is not yet ratified, but there are already products available that use the proposed standard. These are called “draft n” or “pre-n” products. 802.11n will support speeds of up to 200 Mbps/sec, and will be backwards compatible with 802.11b and 802.11g.

Some of you may be wondering, “what about 802.11a?” Others are probably asking, “there’s an 802.11a?” In 1999, 802.11a was an extension to the original 802.11 standard that uses the 5.8 GHz frequency range. It supports 54 Mbps/sec, but since it does not use the 2.4 GHz frequency, it is not compatible with the 802.11b/g/n standards. As the letter sequence indicates, 802.11a was actually created before 802.11b. However, 802.11b was first to mainstream market. Due to the explosive popularity of 802.11b, the fact that 802.11a was not backwards compatible with 802.11b hindered its acceptance.

For more help with networking, wireless or not, feel free to contact Marcel.

A: This is one of the more common questions I get. I believe one of the reasons I get asked this so often is due to the common advice that says you should leave your computer on all the time because turning it on and off shortens its life. Other people wonder the opposite: will leaving my computer on all the time burn it out?

Another reason I get this question so often is because people are concerned about their energy usage (especially now that power rates have gone up significantly in Illinois). The underlying question is how much power does my computer use and can I save significantly by leaving it off when I’m not using it?

I’ll first say that modern computers are designed so that they can be turned on and off without any negative effects. So don’t worry if you like to turn off your computer when not using it. You’re not hurting it, no matter what the common myth says.

The reason a common myth like this survives is because there may have been an element of truth to it at one time. While I can’t find any definitive proof, some older computers (like from the 70’s or 80’s) may have been fragile enough that repeated power cycling (a few times a day) could have worn them enough to cause damage to the computer (or more likely the power supply or power switch).

Secondly, most modern computers can run 24/7 for years and years without problem. In fact, the computer I’m writing this on has run nearly 24/7 for about 8 years now (let’s hear it for the Macintosh!). The life expectancy of most of the parts of a computer (except, notably, the hard drive – see my article about hard drive transplants) is far beyond the time the computer would become obsolete. So if you like to leave your computer on all the time, you’re not really hurting it either.

But if you do leave it on all the time, are you wasting electricity? That depends on what you define by wasting. According to the “Mr. Electricity” web site, a typical desktop computer uses about 65 – 250 watts of electricity when on. That seems like a lot, and it can be. However, most computers are set to go to sleep after a period of time. Mr. Electricity says a sleeping computer uses 1 – 6 watts. So if your computer is asleep most of the time, it’s using some electricity, but not a lot. You may still think that a few watts is worth saving. However, keep in mind that most computers still draw some power even when off. Usually this is around 1 watt. So you’d need to unplug your computer to make it totally stop drawing power. It really all boils down to a matter of convenience vs. saving power.

My recommendation is to make sure your computer is set to sleep and don’t worry too much about it. You’re not hurting it by leaving it on, and the small amount of power you’d be saving by turning off your computer or unplugging it isn’t probably worth it. If you are really concerned about saving power, there are many other things in your home that use more energy.

A: This is one of the more common questions I get (along with “should I turn my computer off at night?” – which I’ll talk about next time). Defragmenting a hard drive (also defrag or defragging), seems to be one of the more well-known and talked about computer maintenance tasks. The issue is whether defragging a hard drive is worth the effort. The answer may surprise you.

Basically, a defrag reorganizes the data on your hard drive so that files are more contiguous – meaning the data that makes up a file is grouped together more closely on the hard drive. In theory, this makes it quicker for a hard drive to retrieve data. This is because it can read related data all in the same area of a hard drive instead of needing to access data that is scattered. Sounds like a good idea, right? Well, it used to be a really good idea years ago. Nowadays, while a defrag technically does make your hard drive faster, the difference is usually too small to really notice.

When computers were slower, hard drives were also slower – and much smaller. Tweaking your hard drive to get every bit of speed out of it could save a fair amount of time. This was especially true if your hard drive was at or near full capacity. Hard drives become much more fragmented when they get full. So small and slow hard drives were a recipe for noticeably decreased performance. Defragging was a good idea.

In today’s age, computers are much faster and they come with faster and very large hard drives. Because hard drives are faster, the performance drag due to fragmented hard drives is proportionally smaller. Since hard drives are so much bigger, most people do not get anywhere near filling their drives up. Along with the fact that today’s operating systems are “smarter” about storing data on hard drives to limit fragmentation, severe fragmentation is rare anymore. Often, a defrag can take one or more hours to complete. So while defragmenting usually does no harm, the time and effort put into it will rarely pay for itself.

Note that I say “usually” a defrag does no harm. Defragging is a very intensive process to the hard drive. It can be enough to push a hard drive to fail if it was close to failing already. So while this isn’t meant to alarm you, you should make sure you have a good backup anytime you chose to defragment your hard drive. And if you have ANY suspicion that your hard drive may be failing (like hearing clicking sounds from your hard drive) especially if your drive or computer is over 3 years old, DO NOT defragment it.

Now this article may provoke disagreement from many other technical people. In some circles, defragging is like an old wives tale, passed on from generation to generation. Again, it used to be a good idea, but not anymore for most people today. Certainly there are many cases where a defrag can make sense. But those cases are usually reserved for high-performance environments such as servers and workstations, as well as “performance junkies” who want to tweak every bit of speed out of their systems. But those types of people aren’t the ones asking me for advice. So to wrap up, feel free to defrag your computers if you feel you need to, say maybe once or twice a year, but certainly don’t worry about it if you don’t.

Generally speaking, unless you or your company run a time-sensitive application, at worst you will need to manually set the clock on your computer forward an hour. The other exception is if you run software to manage your schedule. If you manage your calendar on your computer (or PDA), you should check for an update from the software developer. Regardless of what you do, simply be aware of your appointments for the first few days of the new Daylight Savings Time and make sure your appointments aren’t set for one hour later than they should be.

If you’re running Windows XP, make sure you run Automatic Updates (or have run it recently), and your PC should automatically take care of the time change. Older versions of Windows should download and run the utility “EZ Time Zone“. This tool is also nice if you need to update several machines across a network, or if you don’t want to run Automatic Updates on Windows XP.

If you use Microsoft Outlook, you should download and run the Outlook Time Zone Tool – http://support.microsoft.com/kb/931667
Mac OS 10.4 users should make sure they’ve updated to Mac OS 10.4.5 or later, and also downloaded the latest Apple DST update. Mac OS 10.3 users should make sure they’ve updated to 10.3.9 and downloaded the latest Apple DST update. All these updates are available via Automatic Software Update.

Mac OS Classic users should read this article I’ve written – https://www.marcelbrown.com/techbytes/2007/03/mac_os_classic_and_daylight_sa.html
Palm OS users should download the Daylight Savings Time Update – http://www.palm.com/us/support/downloads/dst_palmos.html
If you have any questions regarding the new Daylight Savings Time and your technology, please contact me as soon as possible.

A: This is a very common question lately, as the newest version of Windows, “Vista”, was just released to the public late last month. While I could go on and on about the details of Vista and why or why not you should upgrade, I’ll keep it brief.

Basically, if your computer is NOT critical to your business, personal, or family use, and you want to try out the new features, then feel free to upgrade to Vista. Of course, make sure you have enough RAM, a fast enough processor, and a powerful enough video card to take advantage of all of Vista’s new features.

However, like most users, if your computer is too critical to risk significant downtime, then I strongly advise that you stay away from Vista for at least a year, if you upgrade at all. I can sum up the reasons for this in three main points:
First, Vista is the most significant upgrade to Windows since Windows 95. So many new technologies are incorporated into Vista that the odds of bugs and compatibility problems are greatly increased. This is especially likely given Microsoft’s track record at putting out new software.

Second, Vista’s hardware requirements are significantly greater than that of Windows XP. While many recent vintage computers meet Microsoft’s minimum requirements for Vista, many experts seriously doubt that the minimum requirements will give a reasonable user experience. To experience all of Vista’s new features, the great majority of computers in the public today will need a significant RAM upgrade, as well as an upgraded video system.

Thirdly, the jury is still out whether all the new features in Vista will really benefit users. Many features are low-level, behind the scenes improvements that most users won’t understand yet alone perceive any difference. The most talked about and noticeable new features are cosmetic in nature. While this can generate a lot of “wow” factor, it can also create a learning curve for all users, experienced or novice.

When factoring all the costs associated with the upgrades against any possible benefit to Vista, it is very tough to recommend upgrading at all. By the time most users wait a year or two, it will make more sense to buy a new computer with Vista on it, than to upgrade their old computers.

The bottom line is that most users should wait to upgrade to Vista, and then make the decision to upgrade or simply buy a new computer.

E-mail me your technology questions and have them answered in a future issue!