Ask Paul: August 19 (Premium)

Happy Friday! I’m back from Mexico City after what felt like a month away and am ready to kick off the weekend.

Android 13 on Pixel

crunchyfrog asks:

I have a Pixel 6 running Android 12. So far all I have received is a small update. Usually when a new Android is released, my Pixel can install it right away but so far, no Android 13. Was this early release delayed or staggered in some way? Is there an issue with the release that I’m not seeing it?

Like you, I assumed that all users on supported Pixels would see this upgrade on day one, but I’ve now heard from multiple people—including Mary Jo–that they’re not seeing it. And so I went back to the original blog posts (on the Android Developer Blog and Google’s The Keyword blog) to see if there was a hint in the language used.

There is: in both cases, Google says that “Android 13 is rolling out to Pixel devices starting today.” The key word there is “starting,” apparently. My Pixel 6 Pro and the review-unit Pixel 6a both got the final release on day one, but they were both in the beta.

And on that note, the good news is that you can force it if you want it immediately: go to the Android Developer website and enroll your Pixel in the beta, then check for an update on your Pixel (Settings > System > System Update) and install the final release. Then, after you reboot and you’re on Android 13, return to that same page on the Android Developer website and opt out of future beta releases so you can stay on the normal/stable Android 13 update path.

Note, however, that upgrading to Android 13 is a one-way street. Once you do so, you cannot return to Android 12.

Software vs. hardware

wright_is asks:

Continuing from the discussion on WW, Windows in business, it isn’t really about user education, most don’t know one end of Windows from the other, it is the software that is the problem, orphaned or obsoleted by the software writer.

Our biggest problem is control software for labs, production facilities etc. the equipment is expected to last 20 years, the software in the past wasn’t expected to be networked and if the PC went out of date, there wasn’t a problem, you just kept using the old version. The problem is, Windows has changed since the 80s, but the idea of control software hasn’t. You buy it with the production line & if Windows changes, you need to buy a new production line, because they won’t invest money getting it to work on newer Windows, so you are stuck with a 6-7 figure bill, just because a $100 part (Windows) has changed.

(It is also the same on Linux, I’ve seen production line systems in 2016 running SUSE Linux from 2000, because that is all the software running the entire factory supported. They had to virtualise it eventually, because they could no longer find any SCSI RAID cards that had drivers for such an old Kernel.

Do you think this incongruity will ever go away?

Our current production monitoring software requires IE up to 11 and ActiveX – won’t run on Edge, even in compatibility mode. The manufacturer is offering an alternative, thankfully, but it is still going to cost between 5 and 6 figures to upgrade the facilities.

Short answer: no, not in our lifetimes.

The incongruity here, I guess, is that hardware is built to last while the key advantage (OK, the key attribute) of software is that it can be infinitely updated and often is. The rationale for the latter is solid enough, because software is a relatively new invention and it’s still evolving rapidly. But that capability flies in the face of hardware, which is rigid and hard to change and, in the past especially, rarely stopped working if it was well-made. I guess this is the difference between mechanical and electronic, or perhaps the simple and the complex.

There are probably a lot of ways to think about this, but imagine if some country (U.S., Germany, whatever) had connected even the further-flung parts of that country with train tracks only to discover that a different gauge track (or whatever) was somehow 20 percent more efficient. Because replacing all of that hardware would be prohibitively expensive and time-consuming, it wouldn’t have mattered: that existing track would simply be used for decades. But when a software system can be made even slightly better or more efficient, it always is, because the cost and time required is usually infinitesimally smaller. And that’s fine in isolation. But in the scenarios you’re describing, there is this disconnect between the hardware and the software.

Maybe we could consider this a transitionary period, one we won’t be around to see the end of. That is, at some point, there will be advances on either end of the equation that will minimize disruptions caused by hardware or software failures (which, in the latter case is what an update often seems like).

And for whatever it’s worth, we even see this in the PC industry, where perfectly good hardware is artificially obsoleted by advances in software. I wonder how future generations or civilizations will view this. Hopefully just as an understandable learning curve for new technology.

Foundation

madthinus asks:

Off topic question: As someone that has not read the Foundation books but love sci-fi tv I had high hopes for Foundation on Apple+ Partly because the trailers looked amazing. Curious what your feelings are about the show. I liked it but I felt at the end of it a little unsatisfied, partly because of all the jumps in the timeline, but also because I am wanting to know more.

I have hoped that streaming might bring us back some great sci-fi. There is an audience for the shows, but it is a global one and on cable those shows always struggle to earn their cost back. Here is to hoping for more.

Foundation is a difficult series of books to bring to the screen (big or small). Not so much because of its scope but because of the way the books were written. Many (me included) have described Foundation as the “Lord of the Rings of sci-fi,” and while that’s accurate on some levels, it ignores the fact that Foundation is in no way structured like the Lord of the Rings, which is a single story. Instead, it’s multiple stories, set over vast periods of time. And the first book is a collection of short stories, written for magazines originally, that were collected together. It’s sort of like Stephen King’s “The Dark Tower” series in that way: the first one is short stories, and then future books evolve into single storylines.

There are things I really like about the Apple TV series, and most of the actors are pretty great. But they had to change the story to make it make sense as a series, in this case most obviously by introducing cloning so that the same characters/actors could appear throughout it. That’s actually pretty inventive. But the show overall was only OK. Like you, I was hoping for more.

But the strength of Foundation, I think, is its description of a post-civilization “world,” (universe), and how it changes over time, something I’ve always found fascinating. The books themselves range from excellent to passable, but I strongly recommend reading at least the original trilogy. (I went back and re-read them all and found myself bored by the end.) A lot of Asimov’s writing, like that of other contemporary sci-fi writers, was about inventing a plausible future and then adding problem-solver characters who could get by some puzzle or issue in a believable way, and that gets a bit tedious after a while. But the original Foundation books are classic.

I’m not sure that there’s a way to bring good sci-fi to TV or movies without amping up the action or whatever to appeal to modern audiences. The recent Dune movie is probably a good example, I thought it was very well made, with great actors, etc. but found it slightly boring. I really liked the 2000s rendition of Galatica, which in no way is “classic” sci-fi, but is rather good TV sci-fi, enjoyable more than anything, kind of like the better Star Trek series.

But maybe that’s all sci-fi really is, a way to tell a good story or teach some lesson using a futuristic place and time that will make it more compelling to those who might otherwise be uninterested.

At least give the first book a shot.

Why Clipchamp?

helix2301 asks:

I just started using clipchamp and compared to iMovie I find it much simpler for the simple clips we do for instagram, snapchat and TikTok. I know Microsoft bought clipchamp now all these need is a good competitor for garageband and I will be set. My question is why do you think Microsoft made the purchase is it to draw people away from MacOS or just because they need another revenue stream? I know in the press release they say it was because they want to empower creators but a lot people need to spend 11.99 a month to justify the cost of the purchase.

I started researching free and paid video editors in late 2021 and early 2022 for two reasons, to perhaps add videos to the Windows 11 Field Guide (that evolved into Hands On Windows) and to see whether it made sense for my wife and me to record videos about Mexico (that evolved into Eternal Spring). What I found was that video is, as I always suspected, very difficult and time-consuming. And that the tools you use—and your familiarity with them—make all the difference. No surprise there.

Had Clipchamp been available in its current form (with 1080p output for free) when I started down this road, I may very well have simply used that app/service. What I found upfront was that iMovie was indeed the best solution overall, but because I don’t use a Mac every day and don’t want to, that didn’t make sense. And so I eventually moved to Adobe Premiere Elements, which works well and, now that I’ve been using it for several months, is familiar.

But Clipchamp is great, and I was surprised by how full-featured it was when I tested it back in April. When Microsoft revealed it has acquired this company, I was confused, like most people, as I had never even heard of it. But I do know that it needed something better than the basic (and hard-to-discover) video editor in Photos, and that it has been many years since Movie Maker (which was excellent for the day) was viable. There are things I’d like to see—4K support, plus paid features for Microsoft 365 subscribers—but it’s mostly in a good place.

As to why Microsoft acquired Clipchamp, we can only speculate, though its long-running inability to attract consumers is likely the cause. It just won’t give up on that dream. Which is fine, because many can now benefit from this being free with Windows.

As for the paid tier, that I don’t quite get. If I’m going to pay for a video editor (or video-related assets), I’m going to look at Adobe (which I literally did), and not just Premiere Elements but also its surprising good Adobe Express tools (curiously also in Windows 11) as well as tools like Canva. Clipchamp, again, is great, but it’s not a well-known brand. I’m not sure what the economics are there, but I feel like Microsoft is charging too much: $11.99 per month is more than the cost of Microsoft 365 Family ($9.99 per month). That doesn’t make sense, especially when you consider that the latter covers 6 users and 6 TB of cloud storage in total.

The good news is that Clipchamp has already changed a lot since the acquisition: 1080p output went free pretty quickly, and now there’s only one paid tier, not three. So perhaps we will see further improvements down the road.

What I Use

andrew b asks:

Paul, it seems it has been a while since you’ve done a general “What I use” focused on just the computer and (more importantly) software that you use on a daily basis. I wouldn’t mind seeing another.

Weird, I was just thinking about this, but what occurred to me was that since moving to a More Mobile setup, my day-to-day usage doesn’t change much beyond swapping out whatever review laptop I’m using. But fair enough, it’s been a while, and there are, of course, other changes. I will look into doing this soon.

How to configure Windows 11

andrew b also asks:

Any plans to do a “This is How I configure Windows 11” article? I’ve used your “This is How I configure Windows 10” countless times.

Yes, and thanks, I’m glad to hear that.

I’ve been struggling to get a first incomplete version of the Windows 11 Field Guide out (it’s at about 210 pages right now but is still woefully unfinished), and that is a key part of that. I’ve updated it extensively since Windows 10 because a few things have changed. But, yes, that article will happen as well.

Microsoft gripe

andrew b also asks:

Also, I have a random Microsoft gripe I wanted to share. I have been trying to get our little family better organized using tech. To that end, I have gotten into using OneNote for things like recipes, travel plans, important info and the like. It appeared that this was going to work great right up until I introduced it to the Mrs. She, unlike I, almost never touches a computer and does everything via her Samsung phone. The snag she immediately found was that OneNote on Android doesn’t allow you to share a notebook. Maddening.

After trying several other note-taking apps that I wasn’t impressed with, I found a s***** workaround: Use the OneDrive app to share the notebook with me. I find it absurd how Microsoft can get so much so right, then completely fall over with the simple little details.

This is kind of a classic example of how Microsoft’s lack of attention to detail continues to haunt it and its users. I moved from OneNote to Notion for Windows Weekly back in March, and while it’s not perfect, it is a huge improvement over OneNote and I will never look back. Well, back to OneNote: I will examine whether Microsoft Fluid, which is clearly inspired by Notion, makes sense. I prefer to stick with Microsoft when possible.