Today marks the release of Microsoft’s most recent incarnation of the Zune. Are we impressed?

In a word: No.

Let me back up here. I was excited when the Zune was first released in 2006. Mainly because the Zune team had reportedly been removed from the regular hegemony of the Microsoft control. They had reportedly been given a lot of freedom to make decisions on their own, and I thought it would be a trip to see how far out of the nest they crawled. And at first, it seemed like they had attacked the development of the Zune with a very future looking mindset. It looked crisp. It was pretty spartan. And they had completely reimagined the pipeline of store-to-player music purchases. So much so that they even abandoned Microsoft’s own “PlaysForSure” DRM model (which was pish and everyone knew it). That takes guts.

They had also included wireless support that would allow you to share songs with friends (very neat). They had quite a bit of storage for the price. Plus there was the FM radio feature – not to mention the possibility of interfacing with other media devices in the Microsoft family.

But then I found out about the fine print, and started to get a bit pissed off. The wireless support was hamstrung by a 3 day limit on the songs you shared. Plus you couldn’t sync a Zune over wireless. You could only share songs. How did that make any sense at all? What a complete waste of a potentially super-useful feature! I mean, the iPod didn’t do it either – but that is no reason to follow suit. And while they had abandoned the crappy PlaysForSure DRM model, they replaced it by the even more draconian Windows Media DRM. So I hoped they would get it right the next time around….

I was let down, of course.

While you can now do a wireless sync (about stinking time), the 3 day limit on song sharing is still there. Plus - and this part is classic - they have now started calling that feature squirting. On the file front you are of course still locked into a DRM environment.

So I ask; are they even trying? Because if you want to kill the iPod, here is how you can do it:

1) Get rid of DRM. Spend whatever it takes.
2) Pump up the accessories market.
3) No limits on song sharing.

And take whoever decided brown was a “hip” color out back and shoot them in the face. Same with whoever came up with “squirting”.

Brown. And Squirting.

Enough said.

This issue is tantamount to a religious question for a lot of people – and I am one of them. I plan here to examine this question from MY point of view – so don’t go getting your panties in a wad if you think I’m wrong. If you don’t like my position – fine. Feel free to have your own.

First let me state that I care about this issue only as it applies to games in the first person shooter genre. I say this because there are certainly games for which a controller is a superior input device than a keyboard and mouse. In fact, I would say a controller is a better option for a majority of games genres.

FPS isn’t one of them. And I have a lot of really good reasons for saying this. But first let’s break this question down.

To me, the debate can be separated into three basic issues: Which input is better for an FPS and why? Why is the controller the standard for console FPS? Why are the keyboard an mouse NOT supported?

Which is Better
What Makes an Input Device “Good”?
1) Precision – to what level of detail can the input device interpret the user’s intent?
2) Speed – how quickly can a user go from “I want to do X” to having X happen on the screen?
3) Translation – how easily can a thought for movement by the user translate into character movement on the screen?
4) Economy – to what level is the input device compact and free of superlative functions or controls?
5) Comfort – how comfortable is the input device to use for extended periods of time.

The precision award is easily given to the KBM. There are console FPS players who claim that dual analog input is somehow more precise than a mouse. And others argue that “the controller is just more precise for ME.” indicating that an equal level of precision is possible for both the mouse and the controller and that the real difference is the player. I will concede that the player’s skill is paramount – but of the two inputs, the controller has the most limitations on its precision. It certainly isn’t MORE precise. I’m not basing that on a personal preference – just look at the facts: a mouse has a higher report rate, and a higher resolution than a controller. Anyway you slice it mouse movement allows a greater degree of precision than an analog stick. It is the difference between using Illustrator and a mouse and whipping out the etch-a-sketch.

Speed also goes to the mouse. Don’t even TRY on this one. Again, it comes down to numbers. With a controller, when I want to turn completely around (using only direction control) I have to push that stick all the way to its stopping point and then WAIT for my character to continue moving. There is a “minimum time” of how long it would take me to get from point A in my 3D word to point B. And if I’m turning completely around, that is something like .7 seconds or so (and that is being generous). Since a mouse is not limited by anything but “how fast can you move your hand” that time goes down to about .2 seconds. Go ahead. Time it. In addition, to make gameplay smoother, there is built in “controller smoothing” which kind of evens out your jerky controller movements in a lot of console FPS. This results in deceleration to your final controller stop point, which in turn makes you overshoot your final stopping point slightly. To counteract this, a lot of developers have a very small amount of “snap aim” so that when you reach a potential target the system makes a slight autocorrection for you. More on that little nugget later.

Translation is really up in the air. To me the movement of a mouse directly translates into the relative movement of a targeting reticule on the screen. If I move my mouse up a little, the crosshairs go up a little. If I go an equal amount to the left, it aims an equal amount to the left. I don’t have to wait for the controller to “catch up” because I have maxed the stick out. Nor do I have to compensate for the acceleration of the stick as it reaches the edge of its operating range (many FPS games will speed up the closer you get to the edge of the sticks maximum range of movement). And the mouse never moves FOR me. If I’m moving the mouse, the character is moving. If I want to stop, I stop moving the mouse. With a controller, I have to hold the stick until I get close to my target and then PLAN when to let go so that I land on my target. That is way more convoluted than it needs to be.

Economy most certainly goes to the controller. The keyboard and mouse take up a lot of room, they require a table, and they have a TON of buttons you are never going to use. The controller is compact, easy to store, and is completely self contained. With any FPS, you can generally learn what does what on the controller in a matter of seconds. And you can count on a default configuration. This is less true of the keyboard and mouse. There are buttons all over the keyboard that you never use. The mouse requires a surface of some sort – and that doesn’t really lend itself to livingroom situations.

Comfort is another one that I think has to be judged on an individual basis. I think the mouse and keyboard are much more comfortable to use that a controller. To me, the controller always ends up sweaty and my fingers get all cramped up. But I know a lot of people who have no problem with a controller, but who HATE using a keyboard and mouse because they don’t find it comfortable. So this one is an individual preference.

Overall, the clear winner of “Which is Better” to me is the keyboard and mouse. But I see the argument for the controller! If simplicity and economy are your primary concerns – then the controller makes sense. Personally, I have trouble enjoying a game when I find the controls to be clunky. Especially when a tried and true alternative option exists. You have to remember: yeah, the designers of a console FPS may have had the controller in mind when they designed the game. But it is still an FPS. And the genre owes its life to the keyboard and mouse. FPS as we know it was BUILT for the keyboard and mouse. Has been since Wolfenstien 3D. So really when you say the game developer “had it in mind” what you really mean is “spent development time compensating for the inferior input of a controller”. So to close on this section: You can claim that the controller is better – but don’t try to say it is because it is a superior input device. Don’t even try to claim that it is on par with a mouse in precision and speed. The only possible argument that you can make for a controller is that it is a “good compromise”. It is compact, and easy to store and you can use it on your sofa. But you take a hit on how well you can control the game.

Why is the Controller the Standard?
“If the keyboard and mouse is so much better than the controller then why is the controller the standard for FPS?” you might ask. The answer is that it ISN’T the standard. It is only the standard on consoles. I imagine there are some people that hook controllers up to their PCs to play FPS games. But not I can guarantee you that they are not at the top of the kills list. So why do the consoles use a controller? Simple: because the console comes with a frikken controller. Remember: FPS migrated to the console from the PC. They were always intended to be played with a keyboard and mouse. So when developers were going to put an FPS on a console, the first hurdle was “how are we going to make this work with these limited controls?” Granted, they have come a long way. But the only reason that you are playing Halo with a controller is that the console manufacturer shipped the system with one. And they choose the controller because it could do a lot of things fairly well. Driving games, sports games, puzzle games, flight sims…. Think of it this way: could you take a car apart with a multitool? Sure. It wouldn’t be the best tool for the job though. A controller is a multitool. And so to give the most latitude to developers, that is what they throw in the box.

Why are the Keyboard and Mouse not supported?
This is a really important question when you think about it. Forget which side you stand on the “which is better” debate. In fact, let’s assume for a second that you think the controller is a WAY better input device. Would you care at all if the developer let another user use a keyboard and mouse? Of course you wouldn’t. Hell, it would probably make your frag count go up! So why DON’T they let players use a keyboard and mouse? Is it because it is too hard to develop for both? In short, no. Many MANY titles that go to consoles are released on PC as well. And on the PC version, the native controls are for keyboard and mouse. You can use a controller if you want – but nobody does. So they HAVE that code written nine times out of ten. So is it because the consoles don’t support keyboards and mice? Of course not. The mouse has been around since 1963. It holds no technological hurdles for the likes of Sony and Microsoft. And all modern consoles can have a keyboard hooked up to them (which have been around a LOT longer than the mouse).

It is because it would make the gameplay unbalanced. Remember that “auto aim” bit I mentioned before? There is your prime evidence. There was an article I read about Bungee and Microsoft allowing Xbox Live players play against Vista gamers in Halo. They decided not to do it because it was felt the PC gamers would have an advantage. One of the proposed solution was to turn off the snap aim for the KBM players. They also staged a very one-sided tournament between the Vista port team and the Bungee developers. The teams didn’t have the same caliber of players (with Bungee having a lot of hard core Halo guys) – I mean come on: they WROTE the game. They even had more players than the Vista team. And they won the match – which made a lot of controller fanbois wet their pants. But it is sort of like putting a Ford Pinto on the track with a Corvette and then saying the vette won because its steering wheel was better. At any rate. There is nothing logistically stopping Microsoft or Sony from allowing FPS games to utilize the keyboard and mouse. And any claim that the controller is “just superior” is obviously complete bunk. Balance is the key to this one. Controller players would be at a distinct disadvantage against KBM players. And they would get frustrated, and leave in droves for a different console game that makes things “more fair”. So you can’t really blame Microsoft and Sony. It is in their best interest to shoehorn people into a controller.

So that is it. The controller is great – it just isn’t as good for FPS games as a keyboard and mouse. I’m not saying you might not LIKE the controller more – after all it is compact, simple, and universal. But as for its use in an FPS game - it is an input device full of compromises.

I am making headway on my latest knife making project that will be sent to a fellow knife maker in Manitoba. It is a Scandinavian style, and much shorter than I made my first two of that type that I made.

A note on the Scandi Grind:
If you are unfamiliar with Scandinavian style knives (but are interested in such things) you should really look into them. Specifically the single bevel blade design (or “scandi grind”) that many of them incorporate. “Single bevel” here means that there is no “secondary” beveled surface on the blade. If you look at your average pocket knife (or most any common knife, really) you will notice that it has two bevels per side. One is at a steep angle, and takes up most of the surface of the blade. Then there is an additional bevel that forms the actual cutting edge. It is usually only a mm wide or so.

The scandi grind has a lot of benefits. It is easier to sharpen, since there is a LARGE surface to act as a guide. By easier I mean “Easier to do correctly” not “Takes less time” since adding more surface area means removing more metal when you sharpen. But it is much easier to accurately obtain a hair popping edge when freehand sharpening. Also, I think the scandi grind just looks dead sexy.

But the grind isn’t all that makes up a scandi. They just have a wonderful “look”. You can see the pictures here.

I have always been fascinated by Linux. Partly because the idea of a free OS makes my wallet drool, and partly because knowing your way around linux garners one mad stacks of geek points. And I love me some geek points.

But it always ended there: fascination. I never really learned anything about using linux because it was just so alien. I once installed a distribution of Mandrake linux on an old PC, and messed around in it long enough to figure out how to change the desktop image. But I never did anything more advanced than that. That is because I couldn’t figure OUT how to do anything else. I promise you that I am not stupid. I just lack tenacity. And I realize that the reason I never went further in linux is because I did not take the time to learn. (This is the same reason I am not a ninja.). So when I heard about Ubuntu, I thought “This might be my chance.”

Ubuntu, as you probably know, is being touted as the linux world’s greatest hope at a Windows killer. It is a distro of linux that is geared at being an “average user” desktop OS replacement. So that is the way I decided approached it: as an average Joe user. Let me preface that by mentioning that when I decide to do something, I usually research it in depth before beginning. GREAT depth. (I have 4 books on blacksmithing that I have read cover to cover for instance. But I have yet to try to forge anything.) I would muddle through as best I could unless I absolutely HAD to look something up. I wanted to give Ubuntu a chance to show me what it could do.

My first attempt was several months ago. I downloaded an ISO, burned it, slapped a new HD in and fired it up. The system started right up, and began launching Ubuntu. (Let me take a moment here: Ubuntu looks awesome. Every part of it looks to have received some love from a talented graphic designer. Kudos.) It is a live cd/install, so a few seconds later I was looking at the fully functional Ubuntu desktop. How neat! Once there, I could either poke around or begin installing Ubuntu to the hard drive. Since I already had a drive sitting there waiting for it, I decided to proceed with the full install. And that is where I hit my first snag. I was able to launch the installer, and get a good clip into it… until I needed to type something. Apparently, my Logitech MX combo (which is like 5 years old, by the way) confused Ubuntu. Funny, because my BIOS doesn’t have any problem with it at all. At any rate – I couldn’t type. So I had to hard reset, and hook the PS2 tail for my MX up. I rebooted and continued on through the installation with no further issues.

So now I was to the point where I could really start getting my hands dirty. I started with some basic web browsing (I hope you caught that). And that was where I hit my SECOND snag. I pointed my browser to Google video, only to have it tell me I was missing the Flash plugin. “No problem!” I thought. “I’ll just install it!” Ha ha!

If you are familiar with linux, you are already laughing at me. And let me say to all the linux gurus out there: Yes, I know about Synaptic now. But did I then? No, I didn’t. Nor should I have HAD to. So let us look at this from an average user perspective:

Scenario:
I am Joe user. I visit Google Video. Google Video tells me I need Flash player to view videos. They have a link so I can get it. It takes me to a page that tells me to download an RPM with instructions on how to install it. Those instructions include the words:

“In terminal, navigate to the desktop and type # rpm -Uvh {rpm_package_file}. Click Enter. (Note: This must be done as a root user). ”

ARE YOU SERIOUS?!

Now, the terminal doesn’t scare me. But I mean come on. That is insane. Joe user isn’t even going to know what the “terminal” is! Installations on Windows have never been that convoluted. For that matter, installations in DOS are easier than that! (“Setup. Enter.”). Now, I have since learned that the RIGHT way to do this is to open one of the two package managing programs in Ubuntu, connect to the correct repository (which requires research), find the damn thing (which requires research), and install it and its dependencies (which requires research). And once it is installed it may or may not have a link to it from the menu, so you might not even be able to figure out how to launch it after it is installed. You would assume that with all this imposed structure and management of installers, the programs themselves would be more likely to “work”. That is because you are a moron, and have learned nothing so far. All of that hopping around and opening terminals might well let you install something that will not run in your particular linux environment. So here is my question: Why don’t you let - oh I don’t know – THE COMPUTER do all the stupid “finding the right repositories” and “apt get” and “put a link here” crap. In fact, why not make the repositories system tie into links so I could just click a link and (after asking me if I was sure I wanted to install the program), it would go do all the rest? What is the difference if the computer does it versus me? I mean if it is a malicious program, it is going to be JUST as malicious if I install it by hand as opposed to the system.

So, in great frustration, I put Ubuntu down again. I was just too pissed off. Too pissed off to even THINK about delving in again. That was until I heard about Compiz…