Dear Microsoft Office for Mac, I hate you.

I wonder if Microsoft tested this at all before releasing it. When I left Windows for OS X I thought I was done with Microsoft's antics, but apparently it's not that easy. A while ago my dad got Microsoft Office for Mac for his Air and let me install it. So far it has been nothing but problems. Windows will occasionally decide to switch spaces without being prompted to do so, the formatting window will follow me through spaces, when I go to save a file for the first time the window it's in gets pushed to the back and I have to minimize all the others so I can get to it, and then there's just tons of random bugs. This is horrible, I don't know what Microsoft was thinking when they released this crap. I'm seriously going back to TextEdit, which is OS X's stock text editor. It's not as feature-loaded, but it's not like Notepad or anything and the best thing is, I have never had a single issue with it. It probably took 20 minutes for some Apple developer to code and I'm fairly sure it has remained untouched since the first version of OS X. Very disappointing, Microsoft.

But for the record, I wasn't expecting much anyway. Microsoft Office has never been that good for me (especially Word, as soon as you want to change fonts or add a picture, you're basically screwed). But I wasn't expecting this.

Don't worry guys, Starbucks isn't that bad.

A lot of people like to talk shit about Starbucks, but I can't seem to find out why. Yes, their coffee doesn't taste like you might like it. But that's why everyone has a preferred coffee joint. My favorite chain would have to be Gloria Jean's and my favorite nonchain is The Coffee Beanery (considering that one isn't a chain, I mean I've only seen one). They have some pretty good stuff.

Anyway, Starbucks really isn't that bad. I usually get an iced white mocha which is pretty good there. Things do get a bit expensive, but since the only one I go to is in a bookstore I frequent, it's convenient. I don't think I'd go as often without the coffee.

Probably the one thing about Starbucks that takes the biggest hit is their employees. I think we've all had a bad experience in Starbucks. I mean I haven't, but my mom has. Not all the employees deserve your wrath though, in fact the ones in this particular Starbucks that I go to are pretty great. They're friendly, they work pretty fast (my mom tells me of a Starbucks she's been to where it can take that long, not counting the time you spend in line), and they make good conversation. 

There are some things I don't like about them though. There's the prices, but there's also the smell of a Starbucks. There's no coffeelicious smell. What's up with that? Coffee smells much better than it tastes. I love the smell of coffee while I have to fill it with stuff in order to tolerate it's actual flavor (hence why I never get a plain coffee). Plus, wouldn't that prompt people to buy more of it? I just miss that good coffee smell that you would commonly expect in a coffee place. Where does the smell go, anyway? I don't imagine it's easy to deal with all that coffee and still maintain the smell of plain air.

The Chrysler Cruiser is the ugliest car ever.

Just look at it. What the hell is that supposed to be? It looks like Chrysler tried to take a VW Beetle and turn it into an SUV. It's got the ugliest design I've ever seen. Just look at that grill. It's so stupid looking. Just like the rest of the car. I have no idea why anyone would ever think about getting one of these. It's like they wanted to make a timeless car like the Mini Cooper (which is coincidentally the greatest car ever) or the Beetle and failed horribly.

By the way, dried hot sauce is awesome. It's like hot sauce candy.

Windows Mobile is awful.

Windows mobile is the worst mobile OS I've ever seen or used. Let me tell you why. It's not easy to use, in fact it's hard to use. Menus aren't self explanatory, they're annoying to navigate, and there doesn't seem to be any easy way to do anything. When I use a cell phone, I want to be able to figure it out within two minutes of picking it up. Within two minutes of picking up a phone with Windows Mobile, I'm either trying to figure out how to get to something that should be easy or waiting for it to stop lagging. Speaking of that, it's clunky. But back on topic. Navigating is worse than on any mobile device I have ever used. They try to make it easy by giving you eight ways to execute any function, but that just complicates things and adds tons of bulk to all the menus. Often while using it I can't figure out how to get to some app or something I was just in. Often on home screens or whatever (I word it like this because I've never been able to find a genuine home screen) there are mystery icons without text. The interface is always too busy. There's always too much onscreen at once. That clutters it up even on a big high res screen. When you manage to get to the app you wanted, it's hard to use. All this gets even worse when they add a touch screen because of how half-assed it is. The icons on touch screen Win'Mobile phones are just as small as on non-touchscreen ones, and that's small. Touch screen navigation is worse than using the buttons. And using the buttons is already terrible. Using Windows Mobile is like trying to solve a rubik's cube where there are no two stickers that are the same color. 

All they did was try to sum up Windows into a mobile device. That is not how phones should work. Windows (kind of) works on your desktop because you have the big spacious screen that's harder to clutter up. On a phone, it's much different. It's always cluttered. No matter what. It is just always cluttered. There is always too much stuff crammed onscreen at once. And with that complex interface (it really feels like a bunch of other interfaces lazily taped together) you can never just whip it open and start doing what you want. The crappy interface that comes on most Verizon phones is better than this. And that's just sad.

Now I don't actually own one of these (which is good), this is all stuff I've learned from using it now and then. Out of my entire life, probably about 8 or 10 minutes of it has been spent on one of these, and this is what I've learned so far. It just seems really half-assed, especially with the interface. I always have a very lasting first impression with interfaces. This is because it lets me judge how easy it is to use from the perspective of someone who has never used it. I expect an interface to be pretty self explanatory on how to use it, I expect it to be fast, and I expect it to be efficient. Windows Mobile pretty much failed all of those. It probably did the best on "fast" except for when it randomly starts to lag a lot. The people who work the Windows Mobile part of the company could really learn a lot from the Zune people. The Zune has an awesome interface. It's very easy to navigate and works quite well. I think it'd be great in a phone if used right.

Definitely the worst thing about Windows Mobile though, is that all the smartphone manufacturers are using it in their phones. And it's such a disappointment. I'm seeing tons of great hardware being put to waste on this monstrosity, especially that Sony Xperia one. The manufacturers are to blame here. Windows Mobile gives everyone a chance to half-ass things. This is because the people making the phones can just tweak it a little to work on their hardware (I use the word "work" lightly here) and leave it at that. Maybe that's why the hardware is so good now, they don't have to put as much effort into the software so they put it toward hardware. There's tons of great smartphones that I'd love to look at if the companies got off their asses and made their own software. I doubt I'd dislike Windows Mobile nearly as much if it wasn't on all the new phones now, like some kind of horrible contagious infection spreading across the whole smartphone industry. Even Palm is using it now. I actually thought the old Palm OS was OK. OK to the point where I've looked at Treos in the past.

I'm going to congratulate RIM now though. RIM is the only company left with any balls. Even though they're starting to fall at the hands of the iPhone, they haven't dropped their decent OS. Instead, they're releasing phones with full assed software. That's right. They made it themselves and they're sticking to it. I even thought of a Blackberry Curve for a little bit because it's not running Windows Mobile, and ultimately decided not to because if I got one, that would give my dad more of a reason to not let me get an iPhone. So congratulations, RIM. Give yourself a hug. I'm pretty sure you're the last one who hasn't sold your balls to Microsoft.

Actually The Jonas Brothers just suck.

Can you say "horrible generic tasteless American rock?" These guys suck. I found out that they have a YouTube channel. The video on the channel page decided to start playing on it's own and I only had to listen for about 10 seconds after the music started to realize that they are awful. Just for you, I decided to take the first few paragraphs of their description and complain about them:

Ask the Jonas Brothers who they're hoping to turn into fans with their new self-titled CD and they won't say "everybody." But that's precisely what they'll mean. "We're aiming for people our age," says 17-year-old Joe. "But we also wanna get kids younger than us," adds 14-year-old Nick. "And older people, too," 19-year-old Kevin pipes up. How samrt* of you, Jonas Brothers. You aren't targeting everyone, but you are targeting people your age, people who are younger, and older people too. Even the guy who wrote this paragraph knows how stupid you're being. And for those of you planning to argue with me, I know they aren't going to read this.

The highly anticipated People without fully developed opinional lobes (usually kids 11 or under, but some bloom late) do not count as people, so technically it was anticipated by no one follow-up to the New Jersey I'm gonna have to move. Now I know why all the other states dislike NJ so much. I apologize for everyone in the state to all the other states for this. siblings' 2006 debut—which featured the TRL hit "Mandy"—The Jonas Brothers is sure to make good on the band's goal: It's a high-energy pop-punk disc No it's not overflowing with insanely catchy hooks no, muscular guitar fuzz what? and mature songwriting what? that reveals just how much growing up the boys have done since we last heard from them. 

I only did those because there's no way in hell I'm going to listen to all their songs (no, not even the 30 second previews on iTunes) so I can say what's wrong with each of them.

By the way, has anyone noticed how unfortunate they look? They aren't as "attractive" as the fans make them out to be (as mentioned before). To quote someone from Yahoo! Answers, their faces look sorta like garden gnomes. I guess the least unfortunate one would be the eldest brother, but none of them are much to look at.

*Yes, I do realize that Maddox has made the joke.

Bose Computer MusicMonitor, my thoughts.

So while visiting the Apple store the other day, I noticed that they had a few pairs of Bose's sexy new MusicMonitor computer speakers on display. I'm not really a fan of Bose, but being the gadget freak that I am, I still had to try them out. And I'm not that impressed.

Yes, it probably is the best sound you'll get for that size, but that doesn't mean it sounds good, and that doesn't mean it's worth $400. The first thing I noticed was how much bass they try to shove down your ears. Then immediately afterward I noticed how bad the bass really was. Yes, there was some true bass to it, but that complicated a number of things. But first I'm going to complain about the sound of the bass.

Muddy. That's the word that comes to 

mind while listening to the bass from these. The way they get it to be as powerful as it is for speakers of that size is with dual passive radiators inside a little slot going through the back of each speaker. It is a very interesting design and it does get results, and I do think it is a pretty smart way of getting bass out of these small speakers. But again, it doesn't sound good. And it makes room for a design flaw which I thought was pretty distinctive. Since there's only one driver and those passive radiators get their radiaton from that one driver, it means that not only do they extend the bass, but they mud up all 

the mids as well. This is more noticeable at higher volumes, where the louder mids are also coming from the passive radiators. Of course, since they're still picking up bass that mixes the bass and mids quite a bit and of course, muds up them both. And to top it off, it's all coming from the same driver, so that driver is making both bass and mids to begin with, so it's already muddy by the time it gets to the passive radiators.  They just finish the job.

So because of that, they lose a lot of their quality when you start to turn them up. But since the bass and mids come from the same driver to begin with (as I just said), they're always going to be mixing and mudding each other up. The highs weren't so bad though.

Now, they're also using some fancy chip inside the speaker (called a DSP chip or something) to make the bass and highs louder than the mids. What's wrong there? Well, anyone who doesn't know much about high end audio (basically the average consumer, which is all Bose targets) tends to notice bass and highs the most in a store system. So they did that to impress people who don't know much about real hifi. And it's working, since they do it in a lot of their systems and they always impress the average consumer.

But after all that I just said, I'm sure you already know what's wrong here. The bass is purposely overpowering the mids, and the overpowering bass was one of the first things I noticed. And after all that I explained, this only worsens the muddiness of the sound. I can't help but wonder if Bose wants to co

mpletely erase mids from the sound spectrum. Are they not good enough? Bah.

So after all that, what do they sound like overall? Well to sum it up, muddy bass, muddy mids, the mids and bass tend to "mix," and as a result of that mixing just causes the overall sound to mash up and sound bad. After all I've said though, I do like the design they're doing. Why though? Well imagine if they (or some right-minded audio company) did a three way design with these same types of passive radiators. That way they could separate the lows, mids, and highs, and they could give the passive radiators only to the lows. This way the bass can still be powerful and loud without screwing up everything. A larger bass driver wouldn't hurt, though.

Update: Here's a picture I drew the other day after bothering to finally install Photoshop.

Edit: I forgot to mention that I also tried the JBL Duet 2.0 speakers while I was there. They retail for $50 and I liked them much more. They weren't a whole lot bigger, but just about everything about them sounded better. Well played, JBL.