I spent some time recently trying to find a new keyboard, since my old one has had enough spilled on or in it over the years that it was uncleanable (still worked fine, but it was getting pretty gross). Now, I don’t know what keyboard designers are on these days, but they’ve made it an incredibly difficult and frustrating task.

I don’t have any special keyboard needs, I usually just buy the basic el-cheapo keyboard that gets the job done. So I went down to my local computer shop, as I usually do when I need computer parts. It seems that somebody decided that the ‘insert’ key is no longer useful, so they removed it and replaced it with a gigantic delete key. Now, insert is probably one of those keys you use more than you think you do. If you spend any amount of time in vim, it’s something that will have you screaming bloody murder.

I then went to the big box stores thinking that I’d be able to find something with their larger selection. Although most of their selection was wireless, every single keyboard had some weird layout. The only ones that actually had an insert key were the ‘natural’ keyboards, unfortunately I can’t type on those, because I hold my arms at that ‘natural’ angle with a regular keyboard. When I use a ‘natural’ keyboard, I have to stick my elbows way out and it gets very uncomfortable.

As I spent time looking at these keyboards, I also noticed some other trends, like weird function key groupings (see first pic above, where F1-F6 are on one side, and F7-F12 on the other, or the second pic, where they’re grouped by 3′s instead of 4′s). The absolute worst design has got to be the poor placement of power buttons. 15 minutes on of these keyboards and you’ll understand. I don’t know who decided to put a ‘power off’ button where ‘page up’ is supposed to be, but something horrible needs to happen to them.

It seems that keyboard designers have gotten bored or something, as they all love to mess with the layout of the cursor keys, insert/delete block, and function keys. Multimedia keys – even power buttons – are fine, but please just put them outside of the regular keyboard area!

I ended up buying a Logitech G15 (I’m sure I could have found and ordered a normal cheap one online, but hey, I was impatient that day), which is totally overkill for me since I don’t play games at all. I can’t even see the LCD, as it’s hidden under my desk because of the keyboard tray. I set up the programmable keys to open some commonly-used programs, but I rarely use them. What I do like about this keyboard though, is the backlighting (actually, that’s quite nice), the feel (light, but you know when you pressed a button), and most of all: it has an insert key.

AppleInsider is running an article saying that Macs are only 13% more than a comparable windows desktop, or 10% for a comparable notebook. They did this research to squash the notion that Macs are way more expensive than PCs.
One of my problems is the cheapest Mac – the Core Solo – is still $699 CAD. At my local computer store, you can buy a basic PC for $279 plus $120 for a copy of Windows XP Home. Sure, this isn’t “comparable” to the Core Solo in terms of components, but in terms of functionality pretty much everything is there, and certainly it is for someone who just wants a PC for web browsing, email, to listen to and burn music, and the occasional word processing task.
So what else is the Mac Mini offering that makes it worth that much more money? The small form factor? Okay, that’s neat, but I have lots of space, and don’t care about the size. Firewire, wireless ethernet, and a remote? Again, I don’t need any of them.
So for someone looking to get a basic computer, it seems to me that an Apple is 75% more. This is a far cry from 13%. This is even a place Apple should be looking to convert users, as these basic tasks do not require any Windows-only software — typically the sticking point that prevents switching. They’ve effectively priced themselves out by offering too-fancy hardware with options many users don’t need. I know the Mac Mini was Apple’s answer to offering a low-cost PC, and compared to traditional Apple prices, it is low-cost.. but that’s sad in itself.

I think Apple should really create an introductory system that targets a sub-$500 (CDN) price point, and market it against the basic PC. But then, maybe I’m off the mark here. Maybe people are really willing to spend $700+ on a system that is 10x more than what they need (Future Shop and Best Buy seem to be selling computers, after all..).

I have never owned a Mac, but would love to buy one — unfortunately I just can’t justify it when I can buy a PC that meets my needs for so much less (less than half the price, running Debian Linux). Maybe someday Apple will learn..

Something that really boggles my mind: Why do all the distros still push their 3 or 7-CD or DVD sets as the main way to download them? It’s 2006 for crying out loud. My distro of choice these days is debian, and I’ve been using the net-install ISO for a couple years now.

Waste of Bandwidth

Most distros come with, well basically, everything. Interestingly, most people use one desktop environment. One internet browser. One mail client. One office suite. Many many TB’s of bandwidth are wasted by the extra programs people are downloading, but never use. This puts undue strain on all the sites hosting, including the mirrors that donate their bandwidth.

With a network-based install, you just download a small, bootable CD with the basic OS on it. Debian’s net-install is 100MB. The installer has the ability to download packages from web, ftp, and nfs servers, as you select which packages you actually want.

Quickly Outdated

When you burn a distro on CD, it pretty much goes obsolete immediately. The longer you wait, the more packages get updates. If you install something a month or two old, then chances are the first time you run the update utility, it’s going to download a large number of packages again, because they’ve been updated. So now you have a whole ton of packages on CDs – many of which you’ll never use – and once you’re done installing, you’re goig to have to download most of them again.

Broadband: It’s Everywhere

A very high percentage of people have broadband access (in USA, estimated 29% rural, 39% urban – probably higher in the rest of the world), and I’d be willing to bet that the percentage among people installing Linux (ie, the techies) is much higher. With a good connection, downloading doesn’t even take that much longer than copying off a CD. (And just think, with all the extra bandwidth from people mostly doing net-installs, the mirrors will be able to go even faster!)

For dialup users or people that want to install on a standalone machine, it makes sense to keep the CDs around.
Faster Install

Instead of having to wait to download 2 or 3 CDs, and then do the installation, you can just download the 100MB image (or use an old one you have laying around, as if it’s been well-designed, it will basically never go out of date) and then download only the packages you need (which should be much less than 3 CDs worth). This even makes sense for dialup users, if they don’t otherwise have access to broadband to get the full CD set.

Drawbacks

There are drawbacks to the net-install. If the network hardware isn’t supported by the installer, then obviously it won’t work. For a new user, a net install may be confusing since it’s so different from the typical OS install. I don’t think these are huge issues though, as long as the user interface is well designed and enough drivers are included (and the user isn’t using some obscure and/or obsolete network hardware).

I’d love to hear comments on this, about why it is or isn’t a good idea, and why more distros have not adopted the network install method.