Interview With Solid State Leader : "SSD Industry is Exploding"

Solid State Drives are one of the up and coming technologies that I am personally very excited about. In just a few short years that "spectacular" aura that surrounds the technology will be dispelled, and SSD will be a standard, common thing. Furthermore, I have a feeling the implications of its success are more far-reaching into the fabric of the economy of the industry than anyone can speculate. SSD has the potential to make or break some fortunes in the long run.

Any discussion about SSD right now has to include talk about MTron, a key player in the industry as the manufacturer of the highest performing SSD's available. MTron has been getting press since early last year as the poster child for Solid State, and their product basically embodies the general public perception of the technology : FAST and EXPENSIVE. My interest led me to getting acquainted with Bobby Braunstein, the Director of Sales of RocketDisk, the largest distributor for MTron here in the States. These guys have been right on the forefront of the wave since it started late last year, so I couldn't think of anyone else that could possibly have a better perspective. They actually have a very interesting story in that their business has its roots in another company, Electron Networks, an IT consulting firm who services major multinational corporate accounts in multiple industries. I spent some time on the phone with Bobby recently to get his take on this exciting new emerging industry.

---
Ed Borden: Tell me about Electron Networks and how you guys got into the SSD market.

Bobby Braunstein: Our network professionals are on the front lines managing corporate networks every single day and one of the biggest problems is how to avoid data loss. Our experience is that no matter how much redundancy you have, that you can never completely remove the risk of losing critical data. We saw that it wasn't because of lack of investment in equipment or because of a lack of process -- even new hardware fails and no process is perfect. We saw the problem of data loss was because of the inefficient technology of the traditional hard disk drive. The old-school arm and platter has moving parts that receive a lot of wear and tear, and so the problem isn't "IF" a hard drive will fail... it is actually "when" a hard drive will fail.

So this was the biggest reason we made the jump into SSD technology a couple of years ago: To save the world from the problem of hard drive crashes and avoid the devastating consequences that accompany it. Certainly there are other benefits, but that is huge in our opinion and we see SSD as the most revolutionary product in the computer market, ever. That's a big statement but that is how we see it.

EB: How did you get involved with MTron specifically?

BB: Our constant search for the best quality, highest-performing SSD's led us to Mtron about 18 months ago when they were developing their controller. We heard about it and they saw how passionate we were about their technology and that we saw Mtron's high-performance SSD's as revolutionary. We have been "evangelists" for Mtron ever since.

EB: What's a general "state of the union" for the industry as a whole?

BB: It's exploding and it's also "waiting". Sounds like an oxymoron, but it's true. Most people really don't know that there are super-fast, high-performance SSD available right now that can ship today. Most people don't know who the leaders are, there are press releases every day, and just like every new technology, it can seem fragmented, very confusing. I think a lot of people are waiting because there's this common belief that the technology isn't there yet and that it's too expensive. And that's really not the case. It's certainly more expensive than regular hard drives, but especially for what it does, for the price, it's available right now.

EB: For widespread adoption, you don't think the prices and capacities are prohibitive?

BB: Would you agree that SCSI has achieved widespread adoption?

EB: In the server space, yes.

BB: Well, that's a huge market right there. So, there's an opportunity. SAS drives don't have high capacities. They just came out with 600GB now. The larger SATA drives, those are now just starting to get widespread adoption.

EB: Those are a LOT bigger though --

BB: Yeah, but they don't perform nearly as well.

EB: -- as SSD, right, I don't think that's a question.

BB: Yes, the price will take a little while. The price of the NAND flash that's used in our SSD's has been bouncing around a lot lately, but nothing ever goes in a straight line. The same drives we were selling two years ago for $3,000 are now selling for about $700, so pricing is coming down quite a bit in a very short period of time. That will continue but it won't happen overnight, and prices are still high for anything over 64GB. 128GB and 256GB SSD's are now available but they are still very expensive and the availability is scarce. That will change very soon."

EB: You said that you don't think people know who the leaders are. Who are the leaders?

BB: MTron is a leader, and I don't mean just on performance. Across the board. Crucial just came out with a 32GB and 64GB, and Ridata, their 32GB is out there, and it's seen in a lot of places, and Samsung too. They're a leader and make the components that every one is using. But no one really has a complete product line except for MTron. Most people just have a few 2.5"s. Supertalent has a complete line, but they're using a hard drive controller, and their performance is that of platter hard drives.

EB: Is the fact that they're 2.5" necessarily a bad thing? WD just released the Velociraptor in 2.5" because the high-density server industry is loving the smaller form factor and lower power draw. Even in special applications, 2.5" isn't something that can't be overcome.

BB: No, but for people who want to use it in desktops, they need to get a tray or something. I think WD is trying to really get into the notebook market with that.

EB: It doesn't even fit into all notebooks, though, because it's the wrong height. The tray is partially a heatsink.

BB: Maybe that's why then. They had to cool it down.

What I'm saying is that nobody besides MTron really has this product line across high-performance SSD. Is that important? Yeah, I think it is. Performance and the lack of moving parts are the most motivating factors. Talk to anyone who's bought these SSD's which don't have the performance and it's a big disappointment. If it's at the retail level, I guarantee it's returned. It's the same technology as a regular hard drive, just with Flash on top of it. To charge that much money and not have those features available... For the same price or less, you can go with something that performs way better.

EB: Samsung's running at 80MB/s read/100MB/s write. Smart Modular is at 90/100.

BB: We've got a complete line that runs from 16GB to 128GB, with speeds at 80/100, 90/120, and 120/120, in 3.5", 2.5" and 1.8" is coming too.

Smart Modular is just not available in good quantities. They are special order, you can't get them quick.

Samsung has a lot of internal issues right now around Solid State. They actually make more money selling the NAND flash on the spot market. When they actually put it into SSD, they make less money. The question is why are they doing that. Well, they're Samsung. Branding is more important to them, in the long term. Samsung is going about it with caution as well. They only have 2.5" right now.

EB: And what are MTron's strengths in relation to all of these other products?

BB: Performance, quality, reliability, price, and selection. No other SSD company out there has such a complete, all-around package of SSD products like Mtron does.

EB: How are you going to retain that edge, though, when there are cheaper products hitting the market?

BB: By continuing to seek out and offer the best quality, highest performing SSD's on the market. Also, selection is a big one. Sure, lots of memory and hard drive companies are now getting into the SSD game but they don't have the entire package like Mtron produces for us. Right now everything is still brand new and people are just now realizing how revolutionary our products really are.

EB: I'm curious why MTron is using a small distributor like you guys - why aren't they going through the established channel?

BB: Great question. Actually yes, RocketDisk started out small but we have grown quite a bit in the last six months. We have increased our head count three fold and have plans to open offices in several major cities over the next 18 months. Plus, when you take into account Electron Networks, were providing a product/service package that is necessary for the industry to get on its feet. We take the expertise from Electron and use that to grow RocketDisk. So, we focus on businesses for our customer base where we can extend that consulting mindset. That's where we come from.

EB: Are you worried that MTron might eventually cut you out of the chain and end up in the channel?

BB: We're not worried at all. They shouldn't cut us out of the chain because of our unique service and expertise. People will always need that, but especially now with the SSD market being so fragmented and new announcements coming out on what seems like a daily basis. So, not only will they not cut us out, but our services are required. However, we're also in the process of working out special pricing with other SSD companies both domestic and abroad. So as our product line grows, we'll be less reliant on any one particular supplier.

EB: Do you guys have any challenges that might be unique to what you're doing?

BB: I would say that the biggest problems, especially end of 2007 and beginning of 2008, were price and supply. We're working with the factories to ramp up production and we are working with our customers to give projections as far ahead of time as possible. Technology gains in the actual manufacturing process will help capacity a lot, but that comes later in the technology life cycle.

EB: I'm also curious where you're seeing these products getting sold into, beyond the more obvious usages?

BB: A waterproof suit for the Navy SEALS that has an onboard computer built into the suit. Test machines in the automotive industry where there are a lot of vibration--uses where traditional hard drives will fail. Equipment in airplanes used to provide voice calls and fast broadband access for passengers. Satellites and other equipment that goes out into space. The AV industry and high def video market. Industrial manufacturing and similar environments where temperature is very hot or very cold (aka: "wide temp").

Really, though, I can't think of a single situation where it doesn't make sense to use SSD instead of a traditional hard drive, except when large capacity storage is needed. Also, the ongoing evolution of fitting the most powerful computer in the smallest footprint possible has created a huge demand for the smaller form factor 2.5" and 1.8" drives and the need for them in higher capacities, like the MTron 128GB GT and the MTron 1.8" ZIF -- which we will be selling very soon. Also the UMPC's and notebooks are driving demand as well. It is coming from pretty much everywhere and as the SSD market grows, so will the number of different applications for SSD technology.

EB: Well this was great, it was great to get an insider peak into what you guys are doing. Is there anything you want to leave with as the key message here?

BB: The one point that I want to make is that coverage that MTron and the other distributors are getting is mainly about performance and is for early adopters and enthusiasts, and what we want to get out there is that that's a great market, but that's not who we are. I love technology and everything, and I have a QX9770 in my desktop right now with an SSD, with a 790i eVGA motherboard and 8800 cards..

EB: Sweet!

BB: ..and I don't even play games, but I understand the enthusiast market. But, we're geared toward businesses because we're on the front lines everyday. We've got a full product line, and that's only going to get bigger. A lot of stuff is coming even just next month. A lot of people don't know that, so that's the message that we want to get out. This is more for businesses than anything, and it's ready to go now.

Continue reading >>>

 

Dell Dumped XPS Because They Are Getting Spanked By HP

The big story burning across the industry today is a report from the Wall Street Journal citing that Dell is dropping the XPS line to focus solely on the Alienware brand. Another report from cNet in Asia speculates that the move is probably going to be confined to the US market, most likely where the Alienware brand is competing most heavily with the XPS. Wow. It's one thing to speculate about the fact that they were doing it wrong back when the acquisition took place, but it's another to actually see it happen.

I'm sure Rahul is having a blast with this one today, and it seems to be validation that the HP/Voodoo merger was a better fit, executed better, etc etc, but I wonder if that's really the whole story. The XPS line had to have been a source of some profit and the systems themselves weren't too bad, so I doubt dropping the line because they were "competing with Alienware" really makes sense. The competition with Dell was always present for Alienware -- whether they are part of the same company or not shouldn't make a difference. Granted, Dell was buying the brand as an insurance policy and hopefully to turn a profit too through their savvy supply chain, but I don't think dropping XPS ever had to be part of the equation.

On the flip side, Dell hasn't been doing so hot over the past year. Since November, their stock is down 30%. Yikes. Apparently, HP is eating them up, if their Q1 financials have anything to say about it. So, if I'm Dell and I'm in a pinch and I've got two gaming divisions, consolidation looks like a pretty automatic reaction. Now I've only got one marketing hole to shovel money into. And if I just paid untold bajillions for the Alienware brand two years ago, obviously that's not going anywhere, so it's hasta la vista XPS.

I guess my point is that this wasn't an "optimal" move for Dell. They didn't want to do this. Further, to insinuate that by no longer "competing with themselves" that Alienware will benefit is most certainly PR spin. This was a desperate act to cut some corners on their P&L statement to stem the tide, and in the meantime they dropped their hold on part of the market.

I can hear the vultures swooping in!

----
UPDATE 05/14 : Looks like the story has changed, now. I don't think this whole thing is over, though. After all, if you're going to close down a business unit in the future, having that information "leak" early is about the worst thing possible. Who wants to buy a product that is essentially getting dumped? I think this was damage control, but I guess we'll see. On the flip side, maybe the WSJ's source was "misunderstood". Maybe the scale-back will only be in a marketing capacity.

Moving on...

Continue reading >>>

 

nVidia Should Keep Innovating Instead of Attacking Intel

A few days ago Brooke Crothers from cNet's Nanotech blog posted some comments by an analyst from CRT Capital Group that I thought were spot on:

"Huang seems to believe that Nvidia's graphics solutions are better than Intel's because Intel simply doesn't know how to do better. But there is another element that Huang seems to overlook--Intel has not, so far, been interested in the high-end 3D-gaming market, other than as a vehicle to sell their own high-end CPUs."

From the first second I saw this whole thing starting to unfold, I just got a real bad feeling in my gut for nVidia. For so long, there's been this monstrous battle at the core of the industry: nVidia + Intel vs. ATI + AMD. It certainly hasn't been made up of official alliances, and in recent years since AMD's acquisition of ATI and their subsequent plummet, the game has changed significantly, but the fact remains that deep down Intel and nVidia have complimentary technologies. Why, at the height of success, would you want to start burning bridges? It's just downright shortsighted. This past year has seen a severe breakdown of relation between the two companies, and I'm not a big fan.

nVidia's got a long way to go to attack Intel's mainstream business, and, in the long run, they will continue to contend with ATI over the GPU, with the possible addition of Intel (via Larrabee) as a competitor. Their domination of the industry is by no means permanent. So, now, with the industry temporarily at its feet, nVidia needs to look to its future and innovate! Buying Ageia was a great move, but there needs to be more. No one knows the visual computing market better than nVidia, so I can't assume to know better than they as to what advancement of that industry would look like. But whatever it is, concentrate on that. Open up new demand, new markets. Go one step further and be just a little bit smarter. Tap potential that has yet to be tapped.

And in the mean time, no more cowboy PR fiascos, please.

----
05/09 - Brooke Crothers just this morning posted a great interview with Jen-Hsun Huang about this very topic, so I'm going to tack my reaction onto this post since it's directly related.

First, I don't think Huang's "fearless challenging of Intel" is admirable at all. I think it's a careless, emotional response, and I don't think that belongs in the business world. If Huang thinks Intel is a monopoly and is acting like a monopoly, then he should take them to court. Don't play PR games. This type of public activity makes nVidia look small and threatened and I would be very uncomfortable if I were in the upper ranks there.

Huang makes several comments about Larrabee and Pat Gelsinger's comments about ray tracing possibly replacing rasterization as the dominant graphics architecture. "They shouldn't be able to say that other peoples' businesses are going to die," Huang says.

Seriously? Gelsinger is certainly entitled to his opinion on where the industry is going, and is allowed to talk about an exciting technology that he thinks will make a big impact on the market. He said nothing about nVidia directly and did the whole thing in a professional presentation as his own IDF conference. Huang's reaction, on the other hand, is an outburst. It's galling, really. Yeah, he is right that Larrabee is nothing but a PowerPoint slide right now, but if ray tracing revolutionizes the graphics industry, then that's a good thing. Nobody is going to feel bad for the companies that have inferior technology. How bad does Huang feel that AMD/ATI is getting ground into the dirt right now?

I say stick to the facts. Does nVidia think ray tracing is bunk? OK, let's hear about it, then. Where's your PowerPoint slide? Tell us why it won't work or won't happen, and if you think Larrabee is a myth designed to just "cast a shadow" over you, then all of the PR around it that you've created has done nothing but harm you and your investors. This is how level-headed business people should approach a problem. Instead, we get "I believe that the entire world believes that what Intel does is build a factory, stuff that people don't want to buy, and then shoves it down its customer's throats."

Brooke makes the comment at the end of the interview that Huang's attitude "borders on paranoid," but that former Intel CEO Andrew Grove's credo was "only the paranoid survive" in Silicon Valley. Fine. But when Huang's mantra is "Intel cannot share the world with someone else," that goes beyond paranoid and becomes defeatist.

I say walk away from this whole thing and get back to work. Look to your own business and keep innovating, yourself. I've heard enough.

Continue reading >>>

 

Top 10 Questions to Ask Before Buying a PC

Last week I explained how system integrators are primarily service providers, yet the industry's foundation is built on marketing PC's like a product. The whole thing is really just backwards, and I think it's got to be hard for the average Joe to cut through the fluff and make a decision based on tangible facts. Most people instead are shopping largely based on pricing and spec comparisons, taking marketing at face value, and then just pulling the trigger assuming everything will go as planned. I think you can expect more from a PC purchase, and I've got a few suggestions to consider that I think will get you a clearer picture of the company you intend to deal with.

First, you're going to explore the market and see who's doing business out there. The industry is bigger than you think, so you really want to do the research to find the company that has a set of services or products that are the most tuned to your needs, especially if you're looking for something that is in some way non-standard. Hit up the major reviews sites, magazines, popular forums, your immediate peers, ResellerRatings, etc etc, and make sure you're getting a good mix of sources and feedback to base your decisions on. After you've found a likely candidate is when I think many people drop their guard. That's the time to really grill your candidate, and I think the best way to do that is to get them on the phone and talk to them. The direct interaction, regardless of what you are talking about, can be very telling in regards to how the company does business. Consider the following points in your conversation:

1) Ask for references from past customers. If you think about it, this really shouldn't be that big of a deal, and it should be interesting to hear what they come up with. If you can get references, ask if you can contact someone who specifically has had warranty service done, and then take the time to email that customer and ask them questions about the company.

2) In your initial research, did you find some horrible review someone wrote or an allegation of some ridiculous ordeal that they were put through? Bring it up! Ask the company what happened, what they did to fix it, why they think it won't happen to you, and what they will do for you if it does happen to you. This is a good opportunity to not only get some assurances, but to get some real insight into what happens when crunch-time comes up.

3) Ask for specifics on policies. How long will it take to ship the machine? What happens if it doesn't ship in that time frame? What's the return policy? What happens if it doesn't work when it gets to you? What's the normal procedure for a bad motherboard down the line or a bad video card? Are these policies in writing somewhere?

4) Ask how big they are and how many people work for them. I wouldn't necessarily tell you that you're looking for a specific correct answer, because bigger is certainly not always better (this question doesn't even apply at all to monster multi-national companies), but I think it's a good idea for everyone involved that you clear up any preconceived notions you may have about who you're dealing with.

5) Ask for specifics about their tech support department. Where is it based? How many people are in it? What is their background and do they have any relevant industry certifications? Will you always be dealing with that same group of people? In a previous article titled "The Definition of a 'Boutique System Integrator'", I mentioned how I thought the organization of the departments of a system builder had a significant impact on the end-user experience. I think this applies to the support department specifically in a big way -- Where does the support department fit in the overall makeup of the company?

6) If specific component information isn't readily accessible on their website, ask for details about what brands they use for their components and why. Dig into the "why", because if they just say "Such and such is better than this other thing" without any basis or research, than it's really meaningless for you as a shopper. Are any parts of their PC's proprietary?

7) Ask about their assembly process and accompanying quality control -- in fact, ask them to walk you through it. If they take the time to give you a thorough answer, then besides getting a glimpse into how they operate, you've also learned if the guy you are talking to knows what the heck he's talking about and if he values your business enough to be attentive and considerate in the face of annoying questions! It's a good test.

8) Ask what comes with the machine -- does it come with everything you'd expect or want? Are their any accessories or media that you assume would come with it? Make sure now! What kind of printed documentation will accompany the delivery?

9) Find out if they have any public forums or blogs. Having some sort of enthusiast community of private followers is pretty common in the industry. Make sure you check it out, see how active those communities are, and how accessible the parent company is within them. This can be a useful place to come in the future if you have questions or concerns.

10) Last but not least, bring up a pointed, direct comparison with one of their competitors and ask for their perspective. Maybe someone else is cheaper, maybe someone got a better score in a review, maybe they do something in an obviously different way -- whatever -- Ask them why that might be and why they still would be the best company to build your machine.

This is a lot of work! This whole thing is a pretty extensive investment of time, but I like to compare this to what you'd do if you were going to make any other large purchase. I really think the point here is to spend the time upfront, as a preventative measure toward wasting even more time in the future. As I said, you're really shopping for a service, and depending on what role the PC plays in your life, down-time can not only mean a loss of time and sanity, but money too. You want to know that you're going to be taken care of. What's that worth to you?

Continue reading >>>

 

AMD's Spider Platform Can't Shelter For Long

A few months ago, I blogged about how we've not been seeing too much action on the AMD/ATI front lately. None of that has really changed yet, and they still can't compete with Intel or nVidia above the low-mid range. It's a tough spot to be in, for sure, and it's absolutely horrible for the market. The industry really needs AMD/ATI to be a viable competitor in order to stay healthy.

The entire line is too cheap, and priced too close together. I actually made a similar complaint at Intel's Wolfdale launch, but AMD in comparison looks like an absolute mess because of the Phenoms being so late to market, which was then compounded by the TLB errata problem. Intel has mainstream desktop processors all the way up to $1500 (QX9770); AMD's flagship quad-core Phenom is only $235! If Intel can actually market $1500 processors to the desktop market, you know things are bad, and AMD's response of playing the price game is a crystal clear picture of how to get run into the ground. They need start talking about, targeting, and supporting applications that benefit from multiple cores and low power more than raw performance, and do it quickly before Intel becomes so bloated with profits that they are unstoppable.

AMD has to disconnect from a price war by differentiating their product. If you can't beat Intel in the raw performance department, you've got to add value in terms of features. Thankfully, ATI is helping AMD do this, and the benefit of having a graphics/chipset company is paying off. The 780 chipset has got a slew of killer technology that makes a sales pitch against Intel a whole lot easier, along with opening up new markets for potential partners. Hardware HD video decoding (UVD is even beating out nVidia's PureVideo 2), hardware HDMI video/audio output, Hybrid Crossfire, PowerXpress, CrossFireX, DirectX 10.1 support, and AMD Overdrive are all technologies that people can get excited about when educated properly. This is the future for them.

nVidia wants in on the platform business. nVidia is pushing hard into the chipset/platform sector, and they may very well break AMD's feature-lead. Besides Intel's own graphic advances and rumors of Larrabee, nVidia is obviously not sleeping and has a competitive platform coming to market in just days. When you put their new chipsets next to ATI's, they are eerily similar : GeForce Boost, HybridPower, PureVideo. Both companies have some exclusive features, and while I think AMD does have an ever-so-slight leg up in that department, it's certainly not by a comfortable margin. So, while nVidia isn't stealing CPU sales, they're certainly going to affect AMD's platform business significantly as they fight both Intel and ATI. Luckily, nVidia made an obvious business decision and has reserved their best platform features for the AMD processor exclusively. At least for the moment -- their Intel equivalent chipsets are right there on the roadmap in Q4, and when that rolls around, AMD's back to square one.

It's constantly a pitched battle, and I swear the whole thing is like a soap opera gone wrong. Everytime I think about this, though, I just can't believe that AMD/ATI is the company that has both technologies, CPU and GPU, but they are the company that can't pull it together. AMD's Fusion tech has got to be the business saver for them. I really hope they can pull it off, and do it right, concentrate on low-power, integrate a rich feature-set, and really run with it. Put the whole dang PC on a chip! If anyone can do it, it's them and that would be a business saver.

Continue reading >>>

 

Why nVidia Can't Take Intel's Platform Business Away

I wrote a few weeks ago about how nVidia has Intel in its sights now that the performance crown is firmly in its grasp with no competition to be seen. The campaign to subvert Intel isn't confined to just CPU vs. GPU, though. In a conversation a few weeks ago with an nVidia product manager, I was asked why I thought Intel's platforms were so strong in the market and what they could do to take that business away, specifically from the mainstream segment. I was actually surprised that they thought they were even in competition at the level they were asking me about, but since it's obvious that's where some of their key future plans lay, I explained what I thought was needed in order to even enter that space.

Intel's best selling mainstream chipset, the P35, is really a pretty plain-Jane product. It has a basic feature-set and a very mainstream, middle of the road price. It's sold into a high-volume segment that still has a decent margin, though, so it's definitely a lucrative next slice of the pie for nVidia to target. At first glance, it seems like it should be cake for nVidia to waltz right in. After all, their competing chipsets have a higher-end feature-set (SLI, GeForce Boost, HybridPower) and higher performance, so what's the problem?

It's not about performance. This isn't arguable. If it was about performance, they'd already have the business, obviously. The problem revolves around a shift in market priorities that nVidia isn't used to. You see, in the high-end, nVidia's business model is built around the fact that their customers will simply come to them if they want to have the best. They market themselves as the performance leader, and they deliver the performance products. No sales strategy is even needed. They ring the little dinner bell and everyone stampedes to buy their tech. The mainstream is different, though.

Intel's market-share is maintained by their strangle-hold on the Channel and their relationships with the OEM's. nVidia's strength is built on their brand, carving out that high-end name. The problem is that there are soooooo many places that brand just won't fly, that feature-sets aren't the main issue, and that performance just doesn't matter as much. That's where Intel's strengths as a service company, a sales organization, a manufacturing behemoth, and an established leader just can't be touched. I've had a lot of experience working in the Channel, so I can tell you first-hand that Intel PWNS the Channel like it's nobody's business. Everyone in the Channel gets inducted as an "Intel Product Dealer", down to the smallest shops. They can go to events that Intel runs year-round across the country and get excited about Intel's technology and engaged by Intel directly. They buy from Intel Authorized Distributors who are trained to love Intel, where everything from credit lines to availability and price are kept largely constant and up to a certain standard. They can talk to sales teams and get support and RMA service directly from Intel. Intel is the foundation and the enabler for many companies to even exist -- that's how integrated they are into the fabric of the industry at this level.

nVidia has nothing like that. They depend on all of their third-party board partners (who compete amongst each other) to sell, manufacture, and support their products. A lot of those partners even sell Intel chipsets too, and they all have varying goals, processes, and back-end structures. There is just no standard expectation for the customer's experience when dealing with nVidia products. I think it's pretty easy to see, then, why Intel's chipsets are known as solid, stable, business-class products and nVidia's chipsets are known as finicky and problematic. That is a not the type of stigma you want to have if you're going to try to break into a sector of the industry that expects the exact opposite.

So, what's the answer for nVidia if they want to succeed here? Engage the Channel! They need to start acting like a platform business partner, instead of a hotshot visual computing company that is dabbling in chipsets too. Then, they need to start holding board partners to a certain level of service when they are dealing with nVidia customers. Those guys are responsible for the end-user nVidia experience and I'd suggest getting out the whip and cracking it. Hard. The key here is to start thinking about what is important to the mainstream and business-level customer base and to concentrate on that. When that's been done, the superior performance and feature-set will be the nail in the coffin.

Related post: AMD's Spider Platform Can't Shelter For Long

Continue reading >>>

 

Team Fortress 2 : Bare Naked FPS Strategy

[Originally written for Bittdaily, where it hit the front page on Digg, and republished here.] The guys at Valve are my heroes. Seriously, the Orange Box is a work of art on so many levels, it starts to feel divinely inspired. Who is this Gabe Newell, anyway?! After playing through the Half Life 2 sequels and Portal, the last piece of the package is Team Fortress 2, which is like the parting gift that keeps on giving. Team Multiplayer FPS being my favorite genre by far, I was of course excited to play it.

No one can dispute that TF2 is one of the most unique looking FPS games out there. In fact, I think they forged the way for style to exist in the genre, and proved that FPS games don't need to be photorealistic to work. Valve's presentation at GDC this past February titled "The Illustrative World of Team Fortress 2" really shows that they had a calculated strategy in doing something so different. It worked, and EA's already in the middle of cooking up their own cartoon Battlefield on the heels of TF2's success. It's great to see the industry continue to develop as an artform.

The style innovation doesn't stop at the visuals, though. The unique classes in the game are so characterized that cinematics and machinima are almost part of the experience. Valve itself produced absolutely hilarious cinematic teasers to introduce the game and the classes that are so compellingly fun that it's got to be hard to resist buying the game just to get more. So don't watch them. The way that they were able to carry the personality and feel of the characters from those cinematics into the game itself is something I've never seen before like this. FPS character models are supposed to be cookie-cutter and boring in multiplayer!

As I said before, the goal of TF2 was obviously not perfect lifelike graphics. Instead, the focus was put on making the game easy, simple, and fun to play. Raw skill and reflexes don't make a big difference here, because every gun basically sucks. That's right -- Nothing shoots straight, nothing is all that powerful, and everyone moves slow as heck (except for the Scout). So, you're basically left with bare naked team strategy, in which the lone wolf player is completely worthless and more likely detrimental. If the team doesn't work together, there is no chance of winning. Since the game is pretty fun just running around and playing the different classes, I do see a lot of people online just not paying attention and sucking. It's definitely a tough byproduct of making a game that is so team-oriented and then playing on public servers, but I guess that's what having an awesome platform like Steam to find another game is for.

I love that Team Fortress 2 is saving me from an absolutely stale genre devoid of any decent games at the moment. I've had my fill of CS:Source and I was mortified by Frontlines, so basically what that says is that there hasn't been a decent game since Battlefield 2. That's like 4 years -- and that's depressing. Since TF2's been out since last year, I am actually pretty late to getting into this game, but if you haven't played it yet, you can get a taste for FREE this weekend (May 2-4). Valve is running a teaser special, a la First Slice. Give it a spin, and maybe I'll be there to wipe the floor with your face!

Continue reading >>>

 

Gaming May Benefit Kids With Behavioral Disabilities

Violent video games and their effect on minors is always a politically charged hot topic in the gaming world. That's why I was so interested in getting my hands on a recently released book, Grand Theft Childhood by Lawrence Kutner and Cheryl Olson, which contains the results and conclusions these two researchers drew from their $1.5 million federally funded study on the issue. It was an intriguing read, and I wanted to take some time over the course of a few posts here to talk about some of the highlights that I found particularly interesting.

Part of Kutner and Olson's survey included questioning specific middle school students who were known to have learning disabilities, as well as included questions that screened students for ADD and other behavioral problems. They found that these kids not only played video games for more hours per week than others, but that they were more likely to indicate that they played games "to feel less lonely", "to make new friends", and "to teach others". They were also "more likely to be victims of bullying and to report being left out or excluded by their peers".

The data seems to paint the picture of children affected by legitimate emotional disabilities, outcast from a normal social environment, possibly using games as a way to overcome their problems.

Some interesting comments by a Michael Jellinek, M.D. were included:

"[The ability for electronic games to offer interaction without criticism] feels great for most of us, but it's especially important to kids who have learning disabilities. A lot of people don't appreciate how much these kids get criticized and how self-critical the kids themselves are. They don't understand how liberating it is to be in control of something like a computer where they can pause and start over, where their work comes out neat and organized instead of messy. The computer is unconditionally accepting, while most parents and teachers aren't."

The inference is that video games are a source of self-esteem for these kids. If so, is it possible parents should be encouraging gaming and using it to help their kids cope with their disabilities? The critical part of the question, which wasn't addressed by this study, is whether the video games themselves might actually be a contributor to these disabilities in the first place. It seems to be a chicken and egg sort of scenario -- Are some kids detrimentally affected by gaming in a way that induces behavioral and learning disabilities, or can gaming habits be used as an indicator and possible aid to those disabilities? Or, do both scenarios exist for different children?

The study seems to bring up more questions than answers (which might mean that progress is being made in the thought behind the issue). I ran this study by a school counselor in a private special education school for kids with developmental, learning, and emotional disabilities to get some perspective and received some interesting feedback. They suggested that some games can be potentially overstimulating for certain kids, making them better served by other activities that might encourage their interactive development (like sports, band, drama, jobs, etc). They also noted that although today's adolescents are heavy users of technology for communication (texting, IM, MySpace), kids who have disorders that affect their social interaction skills are especially attracted to such activities (which is supported by the study as well). The problem, though, is that this removes them from the opportunity to refine and learn those skills, specifically social nuances like eye contact and body language, which is an important part of social development. It also occurred to me how kids like this might be negatively affected by online gaming culture, which is basically defined by John Gabriel's Greater Internet ****wad Theory (Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience = Total ****wad). Add any form of emotional disability to that equation, and it can't be helpful to their development.

I have to say that it's hard to know what to believe when reading studies about this topic, especially when there's been so much manipulation by politicians and special interest groups on both sides. It's gotten to the point where this stuff ends up being meaningless in debate because of endless contradictory statements, yet the issue itself remains extremely important on so many levels. Psychology certainly isn't my field, so I try not to draw any firm conclusions for myself, but I certainly see the need for caution for the sake of kids that might be uniquely affected by gaming, technology, and online culture, and everything that comes along with it. If there does exist a solution via gaming for kids who struggle with self esteem and social issues, and there's some way for them to get a positive reinforcement from achievement in even something like a video game, then the issue is certainly worth pursuing further. It seems there's more at stake here than most people thought!

Continue reading >>>

 

Intel NAS RAID Malfunction = Kill Me Now

An event that I wouldn't wish on my most hated enemy happened to me about two weeks ago. Since the initial shock and sinking into the black hole of despair feeling is starting to wear off, I can start to figure out where to go from here. Before I resorted to therapeutic counseling and mind altering prescription drugs, I wanted to give the blog a try first and see if it made me feel better. So, let me tell you about what happens when a seemingly impenetrable RAID 5 NAS goes bonkers, and hopefully we can all learn a few lessons and I can document my torment in the process.

I have a lot of data: My wife and I both edit video -- stuff for the family, some weddings, other projects, etc. All of our pictures, music, and various other documents are all digital-only. I handle our personal finances paperless; everything gets scanned and shredded. Most of my software gets imaged and the license keys get put into text files (which is why I've taken to digital distribution and Steam so well). In short, a good part of my life exists as 0's and 1's.

This is not strange to me, though. Many people might be uncomfortable with such an arrangement, but I find (found?) it to be liberating. It's easily accessible, takes up far less physical space, and is overall very convenient. But, of course there always looms that dark cloud of ...wait for it... DATA LOSS. FAILURE. THE END OF LIFE AS WE KNOW IT. And yes, I felt that I was very aware of the risk, but being the kind of person that is comfortable with technology and is willing to take the time to understand and implement (and pay for) an advanced solution, I turned to what I thought was an obvious product that could address my storage needs...

...The Intel SS4000-E NAS. A few years ago when this product came out, I was working in the Channel dealing very heavily in Intel products. I worked with it heavily around it's launch period, was very excited about the technology, attended quite a few events around the product through work which gave me the opportunity to interact directly with the team that was bringing it to market, and did very well subsequently selling the NAS into the Channel. As anyone is sales knows, its very easy to sell a product you are personally excited about, and that was true here. It wasn't, and isn't, the only product like this out there, but there's a certain quality and level of service that is associated with dealing with an Intel branded product line. That's essentially how they market themselves, and it's certainly a powerful message. How great is it to have that value-add in such a sensitive area as data storage!

Naturally, I thought this product would be the perfect solution for my own situation. I thought that a dedicated storage unit, with its own power supply, cooling, and controller, hot-swappable and easy to use, and protected by a hardware RAID 5, would be the answer to my problems. I dropped over a $grand$ at the time for unit and the drives, and ended up with a solid 1.5TB array that I could access from any computer on my network and stream content (even edit video) right off of it. It worked without issue for 2 years and I thought my investment was well spent.

Fast forward to two weeks ago, and disaster struck, silently. It started when my wife told me she couldn't get to her data, and a quick check showed me that I couldn't access the shared storage at all from my computer either (we have separate computers -- essential for harmony in our house, and makes a central storage unit that much more necessary). Using the storage console software, I found that I could see the storage unit on the network, but the mapped drives just weren't showing up. After a few standard reboots all around, just to make sure everything was kosher, I went into the admin tool to see what I could find. I have had drives fail before on this, and know what it looks like when the array is degraded. But, there was nothing like that. I was presented instead with a screen that was indicating there was NO ARRAY present at all. Completely confused and starting to catch on real fast that there was a problem, I pressed the only option on the screen: "Start".

The rest is a blur. "Start" in this case was a reseting of the BIOS and firmware, and within seconds, the system was re-initialized and the array completely nuked. I've since learned that I ran into a known issue : "Loss of System Access Issue". I was able to get into contact with Intel a few days after that weekend, and I was told that if I hadn't touched anything, they would have been able to fix it. At this point, there was nothing they could do. The workaround to prevent the problem would have been either to never turn off the unit, or to flash the firmware (which destroys your data).

So, screw-ups all around can defeat even an external RAID 5 NAS. I have to wonder what the answer is, then? I think it's a legitimate question to wonder if this product couldn't keep my data safe, than what can? The Intel rep I was in contact with asked me, "You mean you don't have copies?" Well, crap. It's 1.5TB of data... Should I have 2 NAS units? Burn a few hundred DVD's? I'm out of answers on this one. Maybe if some shmuck didn't press the "Start" button, I'd be fine? I'll give you that, but then if some other shmuck hadn't given me a error that leads me to a one-button option into oblivion, I wouldn't be here either. I personally feel that I'm a pretty savvy user in general (I am in the industry, professionally, after all), so I have to think there are more than a few other people who would run into this same scenario, be catastrophically affected, then simply be told that there is nothing that can be done. It makes one ever so slightly angry to think that the $ was spent for nothing but a ticking time bomb, just waiting to self destruct. I found the overall inability for Intel to feel responsibility or give further help rather disconcerting. The experience will stick with me.

I have to say I haven't given up yet, actually. I ran some web searches and was met by the apparently very healthy and alive data recovery industry. Part of their services seem to include reconstruction of re-initialized RAID arrays. I need to take some time to learn about the industry so I can make some educated decisions, but after some initial conversations, I've gotten quotes from $2500 to $17K by people who think the data is completely recoverable and a run-of-the-mill situation. That's comforting, because since it's a RAID 5 and I was protected from hardware failure, I take solace in knowing that somewhere in there, my life still exists. Even if it's hopelessly jumbled into a mass of digital nonsense, I know it's still there! So, I need to figure out now if the risk of sending these off is worth it, how much I can actually afford to pay to get it all back, and if there is some chance I can figure out how to do it myself without making the whole thing worse.

The moral of the story? The world is a dark place. None of you are safe. It could happen to you, mwahahahahaha! (This is where I set to making my dark villain costume and turn to a life of crime, anguish, and torment, bent on repaying the world for wronging me, yet harming only the innocent masses, become a victim to hubris, then am eventually defeated by a caped mutant do-gooder to finally find myself in a dark asylum on an island, longing for the pleasant days of yore.)

I'll post an update later on after I figure out whether I should sell myself and become an indentured servant to pay for this, or if I gamble my life and marriage on doing it myself.

Continue reading >>>

 

Debunking Windows XP Availability Misconceptions: Buy Until 2009!

I had the pleasure of being approached by blogger Michael Horowitz who writes Defensive Computing over at cNet. He recently wrote about Windows XP availability, and wanted some clarification on what exactly will be available after the posted June 30th Microsoft EOL date. It's a good question, and after I poked around a bit across the Web, I've been enormously surprised at how much buzz there is about the subject. However, much of what's being written out there is not painting a clear picture.

The date in question of June 30th from Microsoft's Life Cycle website is talking about "Direct OEM and retail licenses". Without getting too much into what the term "OEM" means (it is very ambiguous in this industry), this is directly referring to the multi-national monster companies in the market, like Dell, HP, etc. These guys have specific arrangements with Microsoft that are wrapped up in a forced move to Vista. Honestly, its probably not a real issue for them. As David Strom wrote recently, these guys have already made their move to Vista and I don't think they even really want to sell XP anymore. Certainly I think they'll try to get every piece of business they can and try to look like they are accommodating, but when you are talking about big-business OEM volume, you certainly aren't going to ride a sinking ship down to the last minute. Just doesn't make sense.

Also included in the June 30th date EOL notice are the retail boxed products. The retail licenses are the packages that you'll see in major retail outlets and in many online stores. The main difference in this license is that Microsoft provides installation support to the buyer, and the buyer also receives the ability to use the license on any computer they want (on only one computer at a time, of course). It's easier to think of this as a license to a person, rather than to a specific machine. If your machine malfunctions or you decide to build a new one, you can retain your license for further use even though the original computer gets scrapped. I honestly don't think a lot of people who care about keeping XP are buying their OS this way. Not a big deal.

On the flip side, Microsoft has announced they'll retain availability for "System Builders" until January 31st of 2009. This is the key misunderstanding for what I think are the majority of people who are up in arms. The "System Builder" license or "OEM pack" as it's known in the Channel, is the best priced, no frills package option, and it is how everyone who is not an OEM buys Windows. It's not just small computer shops or mom and pops - it's the many hundred-million dollar companies that make up the billions of dollars that runs through the Channel. More importantly, these licenses can be readily purchased, even by end users, in retail storefronts across the internet.

So, who's really affected by the June 30th date? Systems that you'd purchase from OEM builders - that's it. If you still want XP on a system into 2009 and you'd usually buy from Dell, take the opportunity to sample the services from the boutique industry you might not have even known about. And if you build your own systems, I'm sure there will be many, many companies that will do last buys right at the end of January and will continue to have stock until the end of Q1, maybe even into Q2 of 2009. If there is a demand, there's money to be made, and you can be sure there will be those who will know how to leverage the opportunity. I think the point here is that those who want to get their hands on Windows XP, can and will be able to.

Continue reading >>>

 

Razer Review : Can Headphones and Mice Be Hardcore?

I've been using dirt cheap keyboards, mice, and headsets for a long time. Maybe I'm just too easy to please, but I always found the stuff to be "good enough", and it's always helpful to have easily replaceable peripherals when something gets overly dirty or accidentally spilled on. Tell me you've never looked down at your keyboard, peaked down under those keys, and been like "YIKES"! Yeah. Right in the trash, and a new one is only $8 away.

Well, I got the funny idea to try out some crazy expensive gaming peripherals and see if I was missing anything. It was partly an experiment for myself (I'm a softy for this kind of thing) and partly an evaluation to see if Razer's products were worthwhile to carry for sale with our systems. I grabbed the Razer Lachesis Gaming Mouse, the Razer Barracuda HP-1 Headphones, and the Razer Mantis Control Mousing Surface and gave the whole bunch a good 3 months of heavy usage.

First, the Lachesis. I picked this mouse out of the lot because it had the highest sensitivity I could find. At 4000dpi, when the average mouse is probably like 500dpi, I felt just a bit cooler knowing I would be controlling a piece of hardware with such an impressive spec. However, I soon learned that high sensitivity serves a specific purpose. Since it can read your hand movement with a higher level of precision, it needs to be set up much differently in applications to be useful. You've got to learn how to balance the sensitivity of the mouse with the sensitivity of the software or game you're using, otherwise the thing is completely uncontrollable and moves around the screen at the speed of light. Luckily, Razer includes a software suite that aids in this, plus has an on-the-fly adjustment right on the mouse, so you can increase or decrease the resolution at any time. I found this useful not only while gaming (lowered the resolution while using a sniper rifle than in a normal combat mode), but also in applications like Photoshop when needing a more a more precise interface.

Overall, the functionality of the mouse was top notch, but there was a key issue that is a deal breaker for me: It is absolutely by far the most uncomfortable mouse I've ever used. In fact, it may end up giving me carpel tunnel syndrome or some nonsense. It's apparently designed for right or left hand use, and in achieving that, it's just brutal on my wrist. But hey, it does have a pulsating blue backlit snake on it!!!1!1

I used the Lachesis mouse on the Mantis Control Surface. If you've never used a specialty mousing surface, you really don't know what you're missing. I'm coming off of using a RatPad which I've had for at least 4 years now. The $20 it cost me was well worth the use I've gotten out of it, so I figured I'd see if Razer's Mantis surface was any better. Well, I guess I didn't read the description very well, because I wasn't expecting the 44 square feet of mousing surface that one gets with a Mantis. It's not necessarily a bad thing that it covers a quarter of my desk because I can just put stuff on it if I need to, but it's just a fact that a lot of it gets wasted. I wonder if there are any situations where I might need to mouse with the full range of motion of my arm, which is what this product implies. Anyhow, the response of the mouse on the surface itself was just fine and about what I expected from a product like this, but nothing necessarily better than what I had. The deal breaker would probably be the fact that being made of a soft material, it's most likely not going to stand up to the wear and tear of usage that the RatPad does, and it definitely won't clean up as easily. I'll keep using it, though, until it falls apart, then go back to what I had before. I was also considering cutting it into 4 normal-pad-sized pieces and giving them away...

Finally, I rounded out my experiment with the Barracuda headphones. I was extremely excited for these babies, and I was telling everyone that my new headphones HAD AN AMP. Sick! I liked that these headphones had full-sized, soft earcups and were very comfortable. I got them up and running easily and was impressed by the level of detail that was put into little things like the packaging and the control module (again, you can have the blue snake light on or off!!). In the end, though, from an expensive piece of equipment like this, the sound quality was going to be the defining factor... which is where I was immediately frustrated and let down. While the 3D positional surround sound works fantastically, the dynamic range just didn't seem to be there. I was never able to get the audio equalized to where I thought it sounded as rich as even a cheap pair of 2.1 speakers did (mostly in the lower range). The deal breaker on this one, though, was the microphone. I messed with it for weeks, never getting it to sound even close to what I would expect from even a piece of garbage microphone (specifically, the ability to be heard by the people on the other end), and when I finally decided to give the Razer tech support a try and explained the whole situation, this is the response I got :

"Thank you for your feedback. We've already been made known of these issues and they have been corrected in the Razer Piranha."

Ah... So you know that these suck. Sorry to waste your time! At least they look pretty sweet hanging on my wall!

I'm bummed because I really wanted this to go better! After all, I dropped a pretty penny on all of this stuff because I was looking for some hot gear that increased my coolness factor and noob stomping abilities. After all, Razer is part of the PC Gaming Alliance, and those guys are hardcore! I guess I learned my lesson -- and thank goodness I didn't buy a keyboard, because you know I'd be crying about that too for some reason.

Anyone want to buy some sweet gaming peripherals off of me?!

Continue reading >>>

 

Assassin's Creed : Gameplay for the Amusement of Small Children

When I heard about Assassin's Creed last year, I was actually pretty excited. One of my most intense personal interests is the study of history, and the Crusades era is a time period I have been intensely interested in for quite some time. For that reason alone, I knew I was going to play this, as it's a pretty uncommon setting in the current landscape of both cinema and gaming (instead, we've got a WW2 overload). So, on the long awaited day of the PC release, after a 5 month wait since the console release, I had this sucker up and running immediately.


[Summary and review list]

First, I've got to say that there were quite a few reports about instability. I didn't have any problems running it on Windows XP and an 8800GT. Everything worked just fine, and although I could definitely tell it was a console port, there was nothing that took away from the experience, except for the ridiculously long sequence needed to quit the game (annoying as heck).

The gameplay and crowd AI, coupled with the level design, definitely made for a unique experience. I understood that I was supposed to feel like I was in this sandbox environment that I could interact with however I wanted, and that was definitely accomplished to some degree. However, it was obvious that the bulk of the development effort of this game was put into getting the climbing and movement mechanisms to work exceptionally well. They certainly got that right, and it was the core strength of the title. After the coolness-shock wore off, though, there's not too much more to this game... and that's where the whole problem stems from.

The flow of the game is extremely repetitive and its filled with the type of nonsense gameplay elements that I absolutely abhor: Stuff like having to find all 16 of such and such a place or all 100 of one type of flag -- I mean, this kind of stuff is maybe entertaining to a 10 year old, but it's far from what I'm interested in spending my time doing. I don't consider that "exploration" or "interaction" and really all you can do is run around climbing buildings like Spiderman... and kill people. Lots of them. When you get to the bottom of it, that's the whole game. Climb buildings, kill guards, jump on the rooftops to next spot, kill guards, kill boss, rinse, repeat. There was really no challenge, and without something to stimulate my brain just a bit more, I ended up just blasting through it, skipping most everything that was non-essential to getting me to the end.

And the potentially interesting Crusades-era setting? Wasted. Nothing but a dressing. They used the style for names and architecture, but it was an extremely shallow application. Plus, the whole thing was overshadowed by this completely ridiculous "DaVinci Code"/memory-harvesting overarching thread which was really just unoriginal and uninspiring. Trying to splice the two storylines took away from the whole experience for me.

I can't recommend this, and the 78 this got on Metacritic is far too high. I think for a certain audience, that being people who game to pass time (and there certainly are those people), Assassin's Creed is probably a pretty decent play. Not for me. 3/10.

I liked :

• Riding the horse, occasionally knocking over people to keep myself occupied
• Jumping around on rooftops
• Intricate level design

Didn't like :

• Regurgitated "DaVinci Code" storyline
• Repetitive, brainless gameplay
• Boring combat system
  

Continue reading >>>

 

The Truth About Hype, Innovation, and System Builders

Building PC's has got to be one of the toughest industries. On one hand, there's a public perception that system integrators charge exorbitant amounts of money to do what probably most people could do themselves (See "Are Computer Builders Just Exploitive Con Artists?"). On the other hand, the misrepresentation of that idea makes it very easy for any number of companies to jump in and grab a piece of the action. The whole thing ends up being a jam-packed competitive marketplace which runs itself like the Wild West of the tech industry. Companies struggle to differentiate while margins are small, and that means many end up fighting dirty. The market's priority becomes the heated marketing war over public mindshare, but the result for the buyer ends up being massive variation in quality and customer experience. It's extremely difficult for the average Joe to make sense of the whole thing, but I do think there's hope, and it starts with understanding some of the realities of the foundations of the industry.

INNOVATION

1. Something new or different
2. A creation resulting from study and experimentation

Innovation in any business is key, but innovation in the tech industry is what defines success for many. I tip my hat in a big way to the genius behind the companies that produce the technology that goes into modern PC's. They are the ones that really make it all possible, and they are the ones that give meaning to the word "innovation". Consider for a second if Intel took away just one processor -- the fastest processor -- and denied any one builder from selling it. That company's systems would obviously not be able to even attempt to compete at the highest performance levels.

That's because system builders aren't technology innovators, and frankly, that's not their job anyway. Such a statement is surely a blow to the ego of many companies judging from their messaging, so it's sure to be disputed. You see, it's tough for companies that base their business around their marketing departments to admit that PC performance has relatively very little to do with the system builder, but in a world where performance at the component level is roughly uniform across the entire spectrum and overclocking is commonplace and simply implemented, it's the honest truth. Fortunately, this really doesn't matter to businesses who run a customer-centric operation. You see, when a customer buys a PC, their expectation should be for the system integrator to deliver something that is more than just the sum of its parts and let Intel and nVidia do the "innovating".

That's because system builders are service providers.

The trick is that the "service" is ultimately marketed like a product in this industry. It's unfortunate that systems have to be sold this way, but consumers have been conditioned to hone into model numbers and sku's that come in neatly packaged retail boxes. System builders just have to conform to be able to compete. After all, it's much easier to just present you with a "finished" product that you can point to and pay for, rather than explain the service behind building and supporting it. The problem, though, is that the services and support are really what you're buying from the integrator, so how messed up is that?! As a buyer, one of the smartest things you can do is to make sure you've got the right perspective.

HYPE :

1. Exaggerated publicity; hoopla.
2. An ingenious or questionable claim, method, etc., used in advertising, promotion, or publicity to intensify the effect.
3. A swindle, deception, or trick.

Hype is what masks the fact that the main value system builders should be providing is a quantifiable service. If you notice, though, most messaging is based around those things that are easy to hype. After all, high-res screenshots of Crysis or Bioshock look way cooler on a webpage highlighting the power of the GeForce 9800GX2 as a feature of a system, rather than talking about how knowledgeable the sales staff is in configuring a machine to run those games or support its owner if the card fails. You see, emphasis on the components levels the playing field and puts the spotlight on something beside the service, allowing companies to ride the wave of the enthusiast's excited, emotional response to gaming, or graphics, or video, or whatever.

You can't judge a book by its cover (or a PC by its paint job).
I've talked about dragon case syndrome before, but this is a good context to revisit it. I'm not saying not to have a computer that looks freaking awesome, because for many of us, that's essential. What I am saying is that a flashy case can easily draw attention away from the services that you are going to be paying for. Great looking photography of lightning airbrushed into an automotive gloss isn't going to say anything about how responsive the company's support department will be down the road. Fancy paint job ≠ performance, reliability, or quality.

System reviews and advertisements are not reflective of actual user experience.
If you want to try to gauge how a company handles building and supporting their product, you won't get that information from most high-profile ads or reviews. I mean, let's face it that legitimate system reviews are few and far between since [H]Consumer closed up, and although those guys certainly weren't perfect, their reviews were the closest I've seen to useful information for actually evaluating a system integration service. Instead, the majority of content that's produced reads like glorified commercials for whatever a reviewer is interested in at that particular moment. Don't get me wrong - the media is an essential part of the industry, but their content can be extremely difficult to translate into something that will go beyond helping you see who's out there, what they are offering, and what kinds of components they are using. Since all of that is useful information in itself, there's definitely value to be had for the level-headed reader.

You're going to have to dig.
Nobody wants to do more work than they have to, I know. But if you're not going to be meticulous about finding out what goes on behind the corporate veil in an industry that is very superficial, you might as well just go to Dell and get the best price you can. It's a cynical picture I'm painting, but that comes from all of the horror stories I've seen. On the flip side, I have no doubt that honest and straightforward integrators provide a valuable service for the market and their customers. I have many peers in the industry that I wouldn't hesitate to recommend (privately), even as competitors, if it meant saving people from making a big mistake elsewhere.

In my next few posts, I'll go more into what to look for as you shop and how to dig a little deeper, and also what to do if you do end up being that guy that paid good money for a lemon with crappy service.

Continue reading >>>

 

Even Gordon Freeman Can't Save a Bad Sequel : Half Life 2 Ep 1 + 2 Review

Ah, poor Gordon Freeman... relegated to the freebie throw-in in the Orange Box. Half Life went from the reason why Valve existed to being the demo for the Source engine, but even so, he still holds a special place for many of us. That said, I probably wouldn't have bought Half Life 2: Episodes 1 and 2 for a long time if they didn't come in the Orange Box. My expectation would simply be to get a progression of the Half Life storyline, and while I'm definitely interested in experiencing that, I guess it just wouldn't be worth $20 or $30 bucks each to me (especially at 3 or 4 hours of gameplay). Those suckers would have to come to down for me to bite. However, since I got it included in the Orange Box, it was a given that I was going to play it immediately.

Half Life up to this point has definitely been a 10. It's a good, solid science fiction storyline with plenty of drama, suspense, and mystery... and of course zombies, aliens, and guns. My expectations walking into the sequels was to have that continue! Single player FPS's can have a tendency to lose their charm very quickly if the developers don't work effortlessly to keep interest through the whole thing (seems like a tall order these days, a la Bioshock). Well, suffice to say that the Episode 1 sequel did not achieve this. There were 2 or 3 spots in the entire game that actually moved the storyline forward and that just wasn't enough for me. The gameplay, on the other hand, was not bad, as Valve has a knack for making puzzles out of every step of the journey using the environment and neat tricks with physics. That's the only thing that dragged me through it, though. That, and the hope that Episode 2 would be better. I'd give it a 3/10 by itself, and a bump to 5/10 for its contribution to the series.

Episode 2 opened with a 2 minute cinematic re-cap of Episode 1, which did a surprisingly thorough job in such a minuscule amount of time to summarize what happened story-wise. In fact, I'd suggest to anyone to just skip right to Episode 2 and watch it so as not to waste your time. The game itself thankfully resembled a sequel in that it moved everything forward sufficiently to give a little bit of closure. The story was half decent and there was some pretty notable gameplay, intense battle sequences, and a great finale. There were still a few of those puzzly, unnecessary time-fillers, but it was thoroughly interesting, nonetheless.

Overall, I can't shake the feeling that it just wasn't Valve's best work, which is quite a let-down. Portal and Team Fortress (also included in the Orange Box) are just too far better than this to make me feel like I'm missing something. These games could have been better, it's that simple, and I guess I'll just have to leave it at that. I still look forward to the next addition to the series, but for Valve's sake, I hope they'll put it in another box set.

What I liked :

• Characters : Dog, Alyx, Vortigons
  
• Driving the car
• The Finale Battles

What I didn't like :

• Too many headcrab zombies
• Not enough storyline progression
• Just a few too many puzzles, need some different gameplay elements to keep it interesting
  

Continue reading >>>