Computer Support Network

Solid state hard drives have been available to consumers for a few years and available to military and industrial markets since the mid 90’s but it has only been recently that they have become affordable.  Solid state drives (SSDs) are different from normal hard drives (HDD) in that instead of storing data on spinning disks with moveable read/write heads they store information in memory chips.  The added benefit here is that the lack of moving parts makes them silent, faster and less likely to have corrupt data.

I recently had the opportunity to test out an OCZ Vertex 3 120GB solid state drive so let’s see how well it compares in a real world test.

Price

The first thing you need to consider if you want a solid state drive is the price, which is undeniably more than you would pay for a comparable normal hard drive.  The price per gigabyte for normal hard drives has plummeted over the last ten years. Storage is cheap and it’s now more likely that you will upgrade/replace your whole computer before the hard drive becomes close to full.

Note: because normal hard drives have become so large and cheap we can’t do a direct comparison based on size.  Instead we have compared the drives on price per gigabyte.

Price Comparison

OCZ Vertex 3 120GB (SSDs)
$2.50 /price per gigabyte

Western Digital Caviar Black 1TB (HDD)

$0.10 /price per gigabyte

In this case the direct comparison speaks for itself. The price for SSDs has decreased significantly in recent years but they still have the price of a luxury item.

Victory to Western Digital Caviar Black (HDD)

Access Speed

Here is the important category for those interested in a solid state drive and where the hardware really shines.

OCZ Vertex 3 120GB (SSDs)

Speed: 530 mb/s and 1ms access time

Western Digital Caviar Black 1TB (HDD)

110 mb/s and 12ms access

As you can see from the above numbers the SSD is able to transfer data almost five times faster than a normal high end hard drive and can read written data a full 12 times faster.

Victory to OCZ Vertex 3 (SSDs)

Reliability

In the early years of SSD development they were not known for their sustainability but as the technology improved they have become known as one of the most reliable ways to store your data. While we obviously can’t test this ourselves SSDs have an estimated life span of 50 years. Comparatively, normal hard drives are prone to failure over time based on usage and have an estimated life span of 5-8 years.

Victory to OCZ Vertex 3 (SSDs

Other Considerations

Noise:

SSD- SSDs have no moving parts and make no sound

HDD- HDDs have moving parts (heads, spindle motor) and have varying levels of sound depending upon model.

Victory to OCZ Vertex 3 (SSDs

Secure Data:

SSD- Data cannot be securely erased by overwriting the original file without special “Secure Erase” procedures built into the drive.

HDD- HDDs can overwrite data directly on the drive in any particular sector.

Victory to Western Digital Caviar Black (HDD)

Power consumption:

SSD- High performance SSDs generally requires 1/2 to 1/3 the power of normal HDDs.

Victory to OCZ Vertex 3 (SSDs

Final Thoughts

Solid state drives offer vastly superior performance over there standard hard drive counterparts but this performance comes as a hefty cost. In my own tests computer boot up times have been decreased by roughly 15 seconds and many of the programs I use everyday have had the operation lag cut in half.

Despite this performance boost solid state drives are not for everyone. If you primarily use your computer for word-processing, basic internet usage and other light activities you probably won’t see a big enough performance boost to make the price worthwhile. However, if you are a graphic designer, video editor or any other high impact computer user the difference a solid state drive will make will be night and day.

- Richard Keene
IT Computer Support of New York
Design and Optimization Department

Google has innovated on just about every facet of the modern internet experience so when they announced that they would tackle social networking next, a lot of people paid attention. The Google Plus Project or Google+ sets out to be a direct competitor for Facebook. Many of the features are the same and even the overall appearance shares a lot in common. After a week of hands on experience let’s take a look at how Google’s young protégé measures up to the Facebook juggernaut.

Interested in receiving your own Google+ invite? The first three people who post comments in response to this article will have the chance to receive exclusive invites.

Interface and Appearance

Anyone who is familiar with Facebook will be at home when they see the Google+ interface for the first time. The two applications offer a very similar layout and appearance with the update stream running down and the middle, groups on the left and friends on the right. Google+ benefits from the fact that it isn’t cluttered with ads and has a slightly more streamlined appearance but overall the differences are marginal.

Because of their similarities and nearly mirrored interface there is no clear winner.

Both platforms are clean, efficient and attractive.

Stalemate!

Users

The ability to find friends and family on a social network is arguably the most important feature and with over 750 million users around the world Facebook is hard to beat. That said Google+ has been open to the public on an invite only basis for less than a month and already has over11.5 million users. Last Tuesday when Google+ allowed users to invite others that number grew 22% is 24 hours.

Google+ also has an advantage over Facebook in one key area. Everyone with a Gmail account will eventually have direct access to Google+. The two applications are directly integrated as part of Google Applications. This means that when Google chooses to release for a wide market the number of users will skyrocket.

Still, the future is just speculation at this point and at least for now Facebook has the upper hand.

Victory goes to Facebook

Features and Functionality

Facebook has been the reigning champion in this arena for a long time and already bested its previous competitor, Myspace. What then does Google+ bring to the table?

Circles

The big draw of Google+ is the way they have chosen to allow users to separate different parts of their lives. Users can create their own custom circles and add people by dragging them in from a list of contacts. This allows for users to have all contacts on a single account but still keep private matters private and out of view of casual acquaintances. Perhaps the best part of this feature will delight anyone who has been annoyed by a contact who spams their own wall with comments. If you place a contact into the Acquaintances Circle you will only see their updates if you choose to, regardless of which circle they placed you in. For people worried about hurting people’s feelings its notable that circle placement is completely anonymous.

Personal life privacy is one area of social networking sites that has received a lot of press recently, primarily directed at recent graduates. Unflattering photos and wall posts create a major problem for people who apply for new jobs and destroys credibility among those who already have them. In this way Circles create a safe zone between personal and professional life.

Hangouts

Hangouts are a simple idea that has the potential to grow into something huge. At the most basic level hangouts allow Google+ users to view live video streams and participate in live video-chat simultaneously. Currently, the video streams seem to be limited to YouTube but if other sources were opened up I could see this be a great tool for business conferences as well as casual entertainment.

Cross Application Integration

Since Google already controls many of the productivity tools people use every day such as Google Maps, Gmail, Blogger, and video communication it’s no surprise that all of these have been integrated with the Google+ platform. Google has essentially produced an all in one box solution that will probably both appeal and slightly frighten many users.

Facebook Games

Somewhat amusingly this is the one defining characteristic from Facebook that Google+ has not touched on. Games have been a part of popular Facebook culture for years. From a personal standpoint I consider the lack of games an improvement as it will reduce the amount of spam received but your personal opinions may vary.
Google has produced a full featured platform that provides a more customizable and mature social networking site.

With everything Google+ has built in and with a number of new features planned for the future it’s easy to give them victory.

Victory goes to Google Plus!

Final Thoughts

Google+ and Facebook are neck and neck in the social networking wars and there is no clear victor as of yet. Facebook has years of experience and a huge dedicated fan base but Google+ has experience in every other area of the web experience and the resources to pull everything together.

As standalone platforms neither is truly superior yet but the advantages of each will likely split the communities. Google+ is likely to appeal to a more technology sophisticated and business oriented group of users while Facebook will always appeal to a more casual audience. Which network you prefer will likely come down to personal taste.

- Richard Keene
IT Computer Support of New York
Design and Optimization Department

The hardware edition of Tech Wars will take a look at two competing products from the perspective of Ashley from our Marketing and Advertising division. This week we will take a look at Bose MEI2i Headphones and see how they compare to iBeats Headphones.

Hardware Match Up

Bose MEI2i Headphones
Price: $116.00
Owner: Ashley (Marketing & Ad)
Shared Features:
In-ear High Performance Headphones
5 pairs of ear tips
Carrying case
IPod/iPhone compatible 1 year warranty
Built in mic for hands free calling
Unique Features: 3 pairs of “ear tips” (designed to NOT fall out during running or physical activity).

iBeats Headphones
Price: $119.00
Owner: Ashley (Marketing & Ad)
Shared Features:
In-ear High Performance Headphones
5 pairs of ear tips
Carrying case
IPod/iPhone compatible
1 year warranty
Built in mic for hands free calling
Unique Features: Noise Isolation
2 pairs of “airlocks”, (designed to hold headphones in ear)
Solid metal housing to prevent vibration
IPhone/iPod controls.(this feature allows the user to control the iPhone or iPod play, pause, and next track feature right on the headphones)

Compare and Contrast

The newest contender in this matchup, the iBeats Headphones received a lot of press in recent months because of their mega star creator and music industry guru Dr. Dre. Comparatively, Bose has an established fan base and years of experience when it comes to audio equipment. However, superior listening quality trumps popularity and that is what this matchup is about.

So, let’s look at the overall picture here. Both sets of headphones have excellent listening quality, but the iBeats noise isolation feature gives the brand an early edge. Where Bose lacks in noise canceling they made up for it in usability. Bose’s uniquely designed “ear tips” secure the headphones in place during physical activity and exercise.

The iBeats headphones comparative “air-locks” feature fares less well. The triple-layer “air-locks” are thick and designed to stay in ear but don’t. The headphones constantly shake loose during even low impact activity.

Both headphones are compatible with your iPhone or iPod, but only iBeats offers the control feature on their headphones which allows you to skip, pause, or control the volume.

Overall Conclusion:

So what’s the verdict? iBeats pack more features into their stylish and trendy headphones with superior sound and the benefits of noise isolation. Bose offers an enjoyable listening experience with stay in headphones and hands-free calling even when you’re doing the most strenuous activities. The winner? It really depends on what features matter to you most, for us, Bose headphones are worth the investment.

- Ashley Shackleford
IT Computer Support of New York

With the browser wars heating up again there is no better time to take a look at how this generation’s competitors fare against each other. While Internet Explorer still dominates the market for the majority of users it’s Chrome and Firefox that have thrown the most firepower into the fight. IE9 will see a review in the coming weeks but for now let’s look at the two big newcomers.

Interface and Appearance

One of Chromes longest claims to fame is the simplicity of its interface and in the latest generation of browsers Firefox has decided to follow suite and simplify its own browser. In this era of mobile computing it makes sense to cut out clutter and promote efficiency but as a side effect both browsers have become nearly undistinguishable in appearance.

Left = Firefox | Right = Chrome

Because of their newfound similarities the general usability interface is mirrored across the board.
While both browsers are clean, efficient and attractive I do have to point out that Chrome did it first.

Regardless, this round is a tie.

Stalemate!

Performance and Compatibility

While pretty graphics are nice the real test of a browser is how well it does its job so for this round I ran each browser through Acid3. Acid3 is a web test page which checks the performance of a web browser against web standards.

Chrome was a fast winner here and scored a perfect 100% of the standards test. Firefox still preformed admirable, however, and came in with 97%. Just for fun and unrelated to this faceoff I booted up a copy of Internet Explorer 8 to run through the test and watched it crash almost instantly. Good Job Microsoft!

Speed is another area where Chrome has long reigned supreme but in the recent generation the gap between the browsers has almost vanished. Running three different benchmark programs, Sunspider, V8 and Kraken the results were largely neck and neck with each other.

In the end Chrome pulls ahead but only just barely.

Victory goes to Chrome!

Multi Computer Support

Many workers today use more than one machine to get their jobs done, either with home offices or working in the field with laptops. As such it’s often important that a browser offers you the functionality to synchronize your primary work computer with a secondary device.

As a product of Google it is little surprise that Chrome brings many features that allow for multi computer data transfers. Applications, bookmarks, passwords and even auto fill data can all be brought over from one machine to another. This information is stored in the Google Cloud and is accessed via your primary Google account. If you already use Gmail or Google Docs you already have access to this feature. Those worried about security can rest easy with the knowledge that the data is encrypted while stored in the Cloud.

Firefox offers a similar service but the functionality is much more limited and mostly covers bookmarks and preferences. It should also be noted that while the actual synchronization worked fine for Firefox the actual procedure requires that you have access to both computers for the duration. Chrome on the other hand handles the procedure automatically once logged into your account.

Victory goes to Chrome!

Final Thoughts

While Chrome pulls ahead in two out of three rounds and ties for a third this matchup is less clear-cut than it appears on the surface. Both Chrome and Firefox and excellent browsers and both preformed admirably. As a web developer I have hundreds of hours of experience with each and while I do favor Chrome the difference between the two is marginal.

If you must choose than pick Chrome for its edge in performance and extended list of features.

- Richard Keene
IT Computer Support of New York
Design and Optimization Department

The hardware edition of Tech Wars will take a look at two competing products and the viewpoints of their defenders. This week we will take a look at the fourth generation Apple iPhone 4 and see how it stands up to the relative new comer the HTC Thunderbolt.

Hardware Match Up

iPhone:
Defender: Ashley (Marketing & Ad)
Service provider: Verizon
Appraisal: The device is light weight, easy to use and is multi-functional with outlook synchronization, built in access to itunes and access to the app store. The device browser speed is ok; battery life good, charge time is excellent and supports visual voice-mail and pictures in HD.

VS

Thunderbolt:
Defender: Garret (Technician)
Service provider: Verizon
Appraisal: The Thunderbolt offers spacious 32 GB storage and supports 4 G networks. Video playback and online streaming is lightning fast and the device acts as a mobile hotspot for up to 8 devices. The Thunderbolt offers the fastest data transmission on the market today and supports the android marketplace, the OS runs fast and supports *drag and drop* functionality for multiple file types.
Complaints: battery life is poor unless you buy extended battery. The device also has an approximately 2 hour complete charge time.

Compare and Contrast

Comparisons: (both have)
1 GHZ Processor
DLNA Support (3 party app required for iPhone)
VZ Navigator compatible
Global- CDMA Only

Contrasts:
Operating system. (Android 2.2/apple IOS 4.2)
Interface (HTC sense/apple UI)
4g LTE (Thunderbolt YES, Apple NO) =(
Display, Thunderbolt is larger, therefore larger screen!! 4.3 (800×480)
Mobile hotspots, Thunderbolt (up to 8 devices) iPhone (up to 5)
Files, thunderbolt *drag and drop* capabilities, iphone, requires file conversion
Both have rear and front facing cameras, however Thunderbolt has 8MP, iPhone has 5MP
STORAGE, Thunderbolt 8GB, iPhone 16 or 32 GB, (HOWEVER, Thunderbolt has removable 32 GB microsd card) iphone does not. =(
Thunderbolt has Adobe flash support, iPhone, NO
Thunderbolt-768 MB RAM. iPhone 512 MB RAM
Video calling, iPhone-Facetime, Thunderbolt-app available.
Apps-iPhone-apple app store, Thunderbolt-Droid Marketplace

Overall Conclusion:

What is really comes down to in this battle is speed. There is no doubt Thunderbolt is the fastest smart phone on the market. And everyone wants to get their hands on the 4 G technology that allows Thunderbolt to operate at this lightning speed. In almost every other category, HTC attempted to one up the iphone or remained tied with it. The fact is the speed and 4 g alone gives it an edge over its rival. It says a lot that the iPhone 4 did come out before the Thunderbolt, and we wouldn’t be surprised if Steve Jobs is somewhere feeding his new 4G machine protein shakes waiting for the Thunderbolt hype to die down. An iphone 5 is near, so if you don’t have a need for speed it couldn’t hurt to wait it out.

If you just can’t wait to get a piece of the 4G action and get ahead of the pack, Thunderbolt is the only phone for you. So much for competition. But until an apple iPhone 5 is within our mists victory must go to the HTC Thunderbolt.

- Ashley Shackleford
IT Computer Support of New York

Amazon recently launched its Cloud Storage solution with little fanfare yet has already garnered much attention from critics and fans alike. For those who are unaware, Amazon’s Cloud Drive is an ambitious proposition and allows users to store music, documents, photos and even videos that can later be viewed from any computer with internet access. While Amazon has been marketing the service primarily as a MP3/music streaming service it also offers almost all the functionality of current leading cloud share service, Dropbox.

Amazon is starting out strong in this new arena but is it better than the current champ? Let’s take a look.

Interface and General Usability

Dropbox has been around for quite a while and has had time to perfect both the browser based interface and offers the options to synch a downloaded version of the program. Dropbox is clean, fast and offers the functionality to download multiple files at once and even create links to share files with others.

Amazon Cloud Drive launches directly from the parent Amazon website and attains an attractive but very simplistic interface. While everything functions as expected there are notably missing features. Cloud Drive only allows for the download of single files and does not allow for .Zip archiving of downloads. For many users this feature may seem insignificant but for anyone who frequently transfers files will attest, manual file transfers quickly become tedious. Another feature notably missing is the option to share file access with others. Finally, one feature that Cloud Drive does excel with is its toted MP3 integration that allows for easy music streaming to mobile devices.

Victory goes to Dropbox!

Download and Upload Speed

This is one area where I fully expected Cloud Drive to pull ahead.  With Amazons vast resources speedy server access should be a given yet once again Dropbox Pulls ahead.

Dropbox
Avg. Speed – Download: 180 KB/s | Upload: 42.3 KB/s

Amazon Cloud Drive
Avg. Speed –  Download: 130 KB/s |  Upload: 38.7 KB/s

Victory goes to Dropbox!

Costs

Both file services offer a number of different plans for paying customers but this is one area where Amazon pulls firmly ahead.  Cloud Drive offers variable plans for storage ranging for 5 GB all the way up to a 1000 GB.  Additionally, Cloud Drive offers its storage plans at very cost effective prices that are much lower than Dropbox.  1000 GB of storage from Amazon is available for a cheap $1000 whereas the nearest Dropbox equivalent is 350 GB for $795.

Victory goes to Cloud Drive!

Final Thoughts

While it is almost certain that Amazon Cloud Drive will eventually pull ahead in the tech wars due to their immense resources and branding power for the time being Dropbox remains the clear winner.  As it stands now Amazon Cloud Drive functions well enough for casual users and people who demand constant access to their music library but everyone else is better off looking elsewhere.

- Richard Keene
IT Computer Support of New York
Design and Optimization Department