For those of you who still haven’t heard, the bird is the word Google+ is Google’s new social networking experiment.  Their response to Facebook, if you will.  Google has more-or-less tried this before, with Buzz, but Buzz never really took off.  At this point, it’s difficult for me to tell what Google’s strategy is for how Google+ and Buzz will coexist.  Right now, they seem to be completely separate, yet strangely intertwined.  I have a feeling that as Google+ develops, it will eventually completely replace Buzz.

I hope this is helpful.  Unfortunately, I’ve left out screenshots for now.  I’ll try to get some in later this week to better illustrate what I’m talking about. Added screenshots July 4 @ 11:50 PM.

Now that you know what Google+ is, click through to read an overview of my view of the evolution of Google+, a review of the UI, and my general thoughts on things.

Evolution of Google+

While Google+ is an entirely new product at Google, it clearly combines past experiments to make for a more pleasant and combined experience.  This goes all the way back to Google Talk.  Granted, Google probably wasn’t thinking of leading up to Google+ all the way back when designing Google Talk, but Google Talk is still greatly integrated into the Google+ experience.  It has to be.  Social networking is all about communication.  My friends and I often complain about the poor quality of Facebook Chat, but I’ve never had a single issue with Google Talk.  From this standpoint, Google is starting on very solid ground.  Having a good instant messaging system is definitely a must for a new social networking website if it even remotely hopes to compete with the likes of Facebook.

However, Google was able to take this a step further than Facebook has.  Although there are rumors of Skype video chat being integrated into Facebook later this week, Google+ has video from the start thanks to Google Talk.  There are some good and bad points to this.  The good news is that Google+ handles video chat in the form of “Hangouts” which allow up to 10 participants in-browser, cross-platform.  The bad news is that this requires the installation of the Google Talk browser add-on (not just standard flash), but that’s a small price to pay.  Hopefully, this add-on won’t be required in the future with the help of WebRTC, but that won’t be for a while.

As noted above, Buzz also seems to influence Google+, but I have yet to determine quite how so far.  Right now, Google+ and Buzz do seem to operate as separate entities, but I wouldn’t be surprised if that changed by the time of official release.  When viewing a user’s profile in Google+, you have the ability to see their Buzz posts.  However, I have a feeling Buzz posts will soon be converted to Google+ “shares”, and that Buzz tab will disappear.

Another prevalent Google influence in Google+ is the “+1″ feature that has been around for a couple months.  +1 is Google’s version of the Facebook “like”.  You can +1 websites, posts, pictures, etc.  It’s a great way to quickly say “this is cool, check it out.”  Facebook users have been crying out for a “dislike” button for a while, and there is notably no “-1″ button in Google+.  Perhaps that’ll come in the future, though.

My last paragraph is much speculation on my part.  I believe Google Wave has and will have impact on Google+ also.  The only possible impact I see right now is the notification system, which now present in all Google products if you are signed in.  The bar at the top will instantly notify of relevant account activity.  I speculate that Google Wave had something to do with the code behind this notification system.  I’m also guessing that in the future, we’ll see more real-time communication and update ability in Google+ courtesy of what Google learned with Wave.

Relevant Concepts

Circles

How Google+ Circles Show Up

It’s difficult to write a Google+ post without talking about Circles, so I’ll start with that.  In Google+, circles allow you to organize your friends, and this organization is a basic idea of how social networking works in Google+.  This is something that Google has done right from the start, as opposed to Facebook, who have just recently implemented “Friend lists” that no one really seems to use and are a bit clunky.  The circles solution is elegant and beautiful: people can exist in as many different “friend circles” as you please.  The default distribution is: Friends — the people you know in real life; family — as much or as little as you want; acquaintances — people who you know, but might not want to share too many personal details with; and “following” — people you don’t know personally, but whose posts you find interesting.

But, you are not locked into this simple four-circle organization.  You can create as many circles as you want.  Perhaps, for instance, you want to separate high school friends from college friends.  Or have another circle for colleagues.  The organization is endless, but completely up to the user, and, to a point, enforced.  When adding someone as a friend, to use the Facebook terms we’re familiar with, you simply put them in a circle.  And by put them in a circle, I mean literally that: drag and drop their name into a circle.  The method is executed flawlessly, and is a great way to keep things organized.

Now, when posting content, you have a choice of who to share with.  Maybe something embarrassing happened that you’re happy to share with friends, but you’d rather not have your family know of.  Not a problem: simply only share that post with your “Friends” circle.  It couldn’t be simpler to share, but limit.

Hangouts

Hangouts are exactly what the name implies: virtual hangouts.  Creating a hangout is a way of saying “Hey, I’m bored.  Anyone want to hang out?”  This is the video chat feature of Google+, and, unfortunately, I really can’t say much of it because I haven’t had a good chance to try it out.  The feature definitely looks promising, though.  Hangouts can be limited by circle or by individuals.  From what I’ve seen, I’m not sure if Hangouts include IMing or not.  Unfortunately, the computer I’m using right now is old, slow, and lacks a webcam and microphone, so there’s little testing I can do in terms of the Hangouts feature.  It seems nice, though.

Sparks

Sparks seems to be a way to integrate Google Reader into Google+ — kind of.  Tell Google something you’re interested in, and it’ll bring up news relating to that subject.  From there, you have the option to share posts to your circles.  This seems to be a stripped-down non-customizable RSS reader.  However, it does give an interesting way to keep up on some topics from within your social networking site, and a good way to share news articles.  I haven’t found much use for it yet, though.

Profiles

What a Google+ profile looks like

Finding personal details about your friends is, of course, an important part of social networking, and it seems that Google has decided to make Profiles a big part of Google+.  Luckily, they’ve already created Google Profiles a while ago, so if you’ve filled out that, there’s not a lot of work you need to do to get Google+ set up.  Google+ also allows extended privacy controls for profile details.  Again, circles play a big part in this.

Privacy/Takeout

Take your data with you

Since many, many people have complained about privacy concerns with Facebook, Google has decided to let you control your privacy as much as you could possibly want.  Almost every aspect of Google+ can be privacy controlled by, you guessed it, circles.  This is a perfect way to do this, simply because of how elegant circles are.  There’s not much to say on this topic, because it simply works how you expect it to work — you can control who sees what.  There’s not much more you can ask for in terms of privacy control.

Along with Google+, Google introduced Google Takeout.  Takeout allows you to easily export your data from Google, in order to either back it up or take it somewhere else.  Google is very open about this: they want to provide you the flexibility to own your data.  This is something, again, that people have complained about with Facebook.  Finally, with Google+ and Google Takeout, you actually own your data — not Google.

The Interface

Google+'s left panel on the "Stream"

One word: elegant.  Google is working on a cross-service redesign of its user interface in order to make an overall more elegant, simpler experience.  Google+ is the glue that seems to tie all this together, along with the driving force behind it.  It seems that Google wants you to stop thinking about its separate services as separate services, and start thinking about them as one website.  I think that in the future, more and more services will start to integrate themselves into Google+.  The Google+ bar and redesign are just the beginning of this.

Right now, the Google+ bar (the bar at the top of Google) simply allows access to Google+ notifications from any Google service, but, again, I feel that we’ll see an overall more streamlined cross-service experience in the future.  Right now, Google+ notifications are awesome in the fact that you don’t have to leave the Google+ bar in order to see notification details.  This is another plus for Google.  Facebook notifications require you to go to whatever relevant page the notification is for in order to see what the notification is telling you.  The Google+ bar doesn’t require this.  Click the notification number, click the notification, and relevant details will slide into view in the top right corner of your screen, without having to leave the page.

At first, I wasn’t sure I liked the color choices in the new design — everything is very muted, orange and grey with some blue highlights — but it’s growing on me.  The whole interface is, in fact, very clean, and the color scheme works.  It’s Google’s way of drawing your focus away from the design, and towards the content.  It’s not the overall design of the website that’s important, it’s the content you’re sharing and that’s being shared with you.

Mobile Experience

Of course, no modern social networking site could ever become popular without some kind of mobile experience.  Currently, the Google+ mobile experience is limited to Android phones, but that will change in the future.  Luckily for me, I now have an Android phone, so I’ve been able to play with the Google+ mobile app a bit.  Let me first say this: it is way better than Facebook’s mobile app.  The app runs smoother and works better overall.  Here’s a couple key features from the mobile app.

Instant Upload

This is awesome.  The idea is that you can have your phone instantly upload any pictures you take to Google+.  Then, later, when you’re at a computer, you can choose which pictures to share, and organize your photos.  Take anywhere, deal with later is the motto here.  While cell phones are great for taking pictures on the go, computers often work better to do the heavy lifting of organization and describing.  Now, you don’t have to worry about choosing which photos to upload.  Simply upload all of them, and worry about which ones you want others to see later.

Huddles

Huddles are the mobile, text-only version of Hangouts.  This is where I’m slightly disappointed.  Hangouts and Huddles are two completely separate entities; Huddles are mobile-only, and Hangouts are computer-only.  From this standpoint, there is no cross-over between the mobile and the computer experience, which is extremely disappointing.  I hope this changes in the future, because there is no reason that some of your friends should be left out of a conversation just because of whether or not they’re sitting at a computer.  I really hope to see a bigger cross-over in this respect in the future.

The Review

The Good

Overall, I’ve come to like Google+ a lot more than Facebook.  From a cleaner way to organize friends, to a cleaner interface, to some new features that just plain work better than Facebook.  On top of that, the fact that it integrates with Gmail means that I need one less tab open when browsing.  I also like status sharing a lot better on Google+.  Facebook does let you customize sharing with friends lists, but this is a recent after-thought.  In Google+, this is built-in from the beginning.  On top of that, Google+ status seem more multi-purpose than Facebook’s in that you can location tag any status update: pictures, videos or links.

Circles are by and far the best feature of Google+.  Being able to categorize my friends is a great way to manage them, and the way Google enforces this categorization is elegant.  The notification system also works perfectly.  With a modern browser, there is no reason to leave a web page to get content from another page, and Google’s notification system does exactly that.  No matter what Google product you’re using, not only can you see notifications, you can see the content behind the notification without leaving the page.  This is something that isn’t implemented well in Facebook.  In order to view a notification, you really have to stop whatever else you’re doing in Facebook, and view the notification.  Not so in Google+, and it works beautifully.

I really like the workflow of Google+, but I will also admit that I’m still getting used to it.  Every now and then, I find something that might not work quite how I expect it to, but I haven’t encountered any unreasonable behavior.  There are a couple paradigm shifts I’m still getting used to, but, again, that’s not necessarily a bad thing.  Google+ has no wall to speak of, you simply restrict who you share a status update with.  Additionally, private messages have been done away with in favor of e-mail.  Events are non-existent due to Google Calendar.  Features that we take for granted in Facebook are hidden due to their presence in other Google products.  I predict that, over time, this integration with other Google services will become more and more transparent.  But, then, I’m stuck in the mindset that separate Google products are separate websites.  It’s obvious that Google wants me to stop thinking about them this way.

The Bad

I’ll admit: I don’t see much wrong with Google+.  On top of that, a lot of things I do see as “bad” are only “bad due to being different in comparison with Facebook”.  Although, this will be a large hurdle for Google.  It’s difficult to convince people that the way they’re doing things is wrong, and that you have a better way.  If Google is able to do this, they have a chance to take over, or at least make a dent in, the social networking market.  Until that happens, however, people won’t change their ways.

As stated above, I’m a bit disappointed in the separation in the mobile and web experiences.  I see no justification for Huddles and Hangouts being entirely separate entities, so I’d like to see these two drawn together more.  I understand that you might not want to allow video chat on mobile devices, but that simply means that you should allow text chat on browsers and integrate Huddles into Hangouts.  As it is now, Huddles are a mass text-messaging system, with “Reply All” being the only option.  This needs changed to Huddles being integrated with Hangouts so everyone can communicate regardless of location and device.

Overall

Overall, I’ve really enjoyed using Google+.  I’m really hoping that more of my friends will migrate to Google+, but I will also admit that I’ll be surprised if that happens.  There’s a possibility that the transition from Facebook to Google+ could be similar to the transition from MySpace to Facebook, but I think that would require Facebook falling behind in technology.  And, let’s face it, Facebook isn’t letting that happen.  Right now, what’s going to cause people to switch is how Facebook handles privacy, and that simply isn’t a big enough argument for most people.  At this point, I’m stuck using both networks, because most of my friends aren’t on Google+.  Unfortunately, that means I’ll keep using Facebook more than Google+, which means the switch will never happen.

Google+ does a lot better than Facebook, and provides a smoother, cleaner, more elegant social networking experience.  But, until Facebook actually falls behind, it will stay in the spotlight because people will see no reason to switch.

In this blog post, I’m going to attempt to explain, very simply, what defragging a harddrive actually does, and why you should, or shouldn’t, do it.  Some of my more technically inept readers may think I’m oversimplifying things by not dealing with the different filesystems, not explaining exactly how data is written, etc., but that’s not the point of this post.  My goal is to explain, in the simplest terms possible, how your harddrive works, and what defragging the harddrive does, in terms of how data is stored on the drive.  To start, I’ll explain the typical way data is stored on the drive, then I’ll talk about what types of situations create harddrive fragmentation, next I’ll explain why fragmentation is bad for your harddrive, and, finally, I’ll give an argument about whether or not you should run a defrag tool.

First, let me attempt to explain what defragging a harddrive actually does.  Even though harddrives are disks, a good way to visualize them is by laying the data bits (all the ones and zeros) out in a line.  If you take this line of data, and curve it into a spiral, you’ll get your harddrive back.  But, because it’s easier to demonstrate things by using a line, I’ll assume that you can understand that even though your data is curved on the disk, we can pretend it’s all lined up.  There are two main parts to data on your harddrive: a table telling the computer where files are on the harddrive, what they’re named, how big they are, etc.; and the actual data of the files.

When you write a file to the harddrive, two things happen: one, the harddrive adds an entry to its file table with information about the file; two, the data of the file is written in the appropriate place on the harddrive.  Because when you get a new harddrive, there’s no data on it, files are written as far to the left as they can be.  So, if you write five small files to your harddrive, the information might look like this on the drive:
AAAAAABBBBBBBBBCCCCCCCDDDDDDDDDDDDEEEEEEEE
As “A” takes six units of space; “B”, 9; “C”, 7; “D”, 12; “E”, 8.  You’ll also notice that all the files are continuous.  This is what your harddrive likes.  Generally, you will read a file on your drive from start to finish, in order.  If the file is stored on your harddrive that way, there’s very little work to be done.  Your harddrive moves to the beginning of the file, and reads the data in order.  Now let’s say you delete A, C, and E, and write a big file F:
FFFFFFBBBBBBBBBFFFFFFFDDDDDDDDDDDDFFFFFFFF
As you can see, the file “F” takes up all the space that A, C, and E did. That’s 21 units of disk space, for those keeping track.  If your harddrive wants to read the file “F”, it has a lot of work to do!  It has to now take some time to move over files B and D in order to read F from start to finish.  We call F a “fragmented” file, because fragments of it are stored on different places in the harddrive.

This is the main way fragmentation is created: deleting files, and creating new ones.  Most of the time, your drive will try to store data as close to the beginning of the drive as possible.  So, if you find yourself creating and deleting files often, you probably have a fragmented drive.  In this way, fragmentation is pretty unavoidable.  Bigger drives are less prone to fragmentation, because there will be more empty space at the end of the drive, but most drives will eventually end up with some fragmented files.

So, why is fragmentation bad for your harddrive?  Well, the problem is that harddrives aren’t made to last forever.  And, depending on how fragmented your drive is, you can greatly shorten the life of your drive.  The more you have to move around on the drive to read data, the shorter your drive will last.

Finally… should you defrag or not, and, if so, how often?  In general… no, you probably don’t need to defrag.  Windows Vista and Windows 7 actually come with utilities to help prevent fragmentation in the first place.  On Windows XP, there is a special defrag tool.  There’s a possibility that you’ll notice a speed increase after defragging your harddrive, but most likely, the difference will be negligible.  All the defrag tool does is rearrange files on the drive so they’re all nice and in order.  If we were to take the example from above, your drive would look like this after defragging it:
BBBBBBBBBDDDDDDDDDDDDFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
However, defragging every now and then won’t hurt the drive.  If you really want to take the time to go through the process, it’s probably safe to do once every six months or so.  Any more often than that and you risk putting too much stress on the drive, and actually shortening the life of the drive even more.

As a final note, because Solid State Drives are becoming more popular, it should be noted that you should NOT defrag a solid state drive for any reason.  Solid state drives have fundamental differences in the way they work from standard harddrives, and defragging a solid state drive WILL cause a reduction in drive life.

But… if you’ve seen any of the press about the iPad, you might be confused by what I just wrote.  Almost every tech blog I know is bashing the iPad for being an all-around crappy product.  Considering myself a technology enthusiast, I can only say this: I agree.  Apple had the potential to dip into a market that no one’s really gotten quite right, and create a booming industry for themselves, like they did with the iPod.  It seems, however, that they’ve ruined their chance to do that.  So, where did Apple go wrong?  I’ll start with the obvious and most-touted answer, and I’ll try to work down to some more original points, but pretty much everything’s been covered already.  However, if you do really like the iPad, keep reading to the end of the article, and I’ll try to point out what Apple has done right.

1. The Name

Perhaps you’ll say this is a crappy excuse to dislike a product, and I’ll agree with you on that at least partially.  But, if you’re going to give a product a crappy name, you better have one darn good product.  It’s more the fact that the product itself is so bad that makes the name that much worse, but Apple could still have better chosen the name for their tablet.  Seriously… the iPad?  The Internet filled with tampon jokes as soon as the name was announced.  Earlier today, “iTampon” was a more popular topic on twitter than iPad was.  But… the name is something we can easily get over, and the jokes will only last so long.  Eventually, we’ll get used to the name, and get annoyed by people who still make fun of it.

2. It’s Nothing New

For this, we really need to delve a bit deeper into what the iPad actually is, to the consumer.  The only way to answer the question “What, in essence, is the iPad?” is by saying “It’s basically a giant iPod Touch”.  Before I get bashed for touting this inaccurate description, let me clarify: I realize it is not, exactly, a giant iPod Touch.  It can now read books, and do some word processing and spreadsheets.  It also has a built-in 3G modem (for data only).  But, it’s designed to run iPhone/iPod Touch applications.  We’ve seen the iPod Touch.  Everyone was expecting something completely innovative, that built on the iPod Touch platform instead of just slightly expanding it, but Apple failed to deliver.

3. No Multitasking

Whether you think so or not… this is a huge deal.  If multitasking weren’t important in computing, we wouldn’t see the rise of dual-, quad-, and ocho-core processors.  I understand that multitasking can be a downside in mobile applications where battery life is important, but it seems like basic functionality that needs to be present in a device with a screen size larger than 5-6″.  Want to leave chat open in the background, waiting for an IM, while you browse the Internet?  You can’t.  Want to quickly switch between checking your e-mail and word processing?  You can’t.  Multitasking is definitely something we take for granted on computers today, and it’s a huge mistake to leave it out of a device that is trying to revolutionize a market.

4. Built-in Battery

Apple, Apple, Apple…  I was disappointed when they locked the battery into the iPhone, but most people can deal with that.  Personally, I was quite upset when they decided they would do the same thing with their laptops.  But now they’re trying to push ANOTHER mobile device that lacks a user-replaceable battery?  Batteries on mobile devices die.  Quickly.  A lot of the time, this is due to poor charging habits on the part of consumers, but you can’t just ignore the fact that it happens.  But… when your iPad battery eventually kicks the bucket, you won’t be able to just pick another one up and pop it in.  No… now you have to deal with Apple doing that for you, and hope they still support the device in 10 years when you suddenly decide you want to use it again.

5. No e-ink

I understand why Apple didn’t include an e-ink screen, and with what they’re going for, I think it’s good that they didn’t.  However…  one thing they’re pushing in the iPad is the fact that it reads eBooks.  Anyone who has used a Kindle or similar eBook reader will tell you that an e-ink screen is the only way to read an eBook.  A backlit LCD, like the one the iPad has, causes eye strain, poor visibility, etc.  Nowadays, you will either have an eBook reader, or a multimedia device with an LCD.  Trying to turn a device with an LCD into an eBook reader, when eBook readers have already had time to mature and become popular, was a bad idea.

6. DRM

Again, I’m disappointed in Apple, but again I’m not surprised.  DRM, digital rights management, is a huge issue, especially with a device like the iPad that Apple want’s to be the “next big thing”.  When Apple finally got rid of DRM in iTunes, the news was huge.  No more restrictions on music you’ve paid for.  If you buy something, it’s yours.  That’s the way the digital world should work.  However, Apple reintroduced the idea of DRM with Apps for the iPhone and iPod Touch.  Well, the same DRM exists in the iPad.  If Apple suddenly decides they don’t like an application, they can delete it from your iPad without even giving you notice, even if you’ve paid for it!  Basically, the idea that a computer manufacturer can decide what applications you can and cannot run on your computer is ludicrous.  It’s akin to Toshiba only allowing you to run Windows, and only allowing you to use Microsoft Office, because they have a special deal with Microsoft.  If this happened, people would be outraged!  But, for some reason, everyone seems passive about Apple doing the same thing.

7. No Physical Keyboard

I don’t care who you are, typing on a touchscreen keyboard is NOT the same as typing on a real, physical keyboard.  When I type, I always rest my fingers on the keys, so I know where they are without having to look.  This is impossible with a touchscreen keyboard.  In fact, I find it hard to believe anyone would be able to efficiently type with both hands on the iPad: the basic idea of typing with two hands requires the iPad to be set down somewhere, and a rest of the wrists.  Apple appears to envision people doing word processing on the iPad, but I can’t imagine myself typing a paper with one finger.

8. No USB Ports*

*Without a special adapter.  This has been an argument against Apple in the past with their display port.  Want to take video out from your laptop?  You’ll need to buy a $40 adapter that only Apple sells.  Want a USB port on your iPad?  You’ll need to buy an adapter that only Apple sells.  As USB devices become more and more ambiguous, USB ports become more and more important.  The fact that a handheld computer with a screen as big as the iPad would lack a USB is ridiculous.  Transferring files between computers with a thumb drive is so easy, and would be important to do word processing.  Additionally, goofy USB peripherals are everywhere, and you never know what USB things you’ll run into.

9. A New Processor

This may seem like a bonus to some.  Apple has invented their own processor which is supposed to be low-powered, and run fast.  In fact, reports from people who have actually used the iPad say exactly this: it’s a fast device.  First, I’ll note that of course it’s fast… you can only do one thing at a time.  But, my real reason for this being a negative is much more geeky: we have enough processor architectures already!  ARM has done an excellent job at creating processors that use very little power, and operate with extreme speed.  The best part is, we know how to use an ARM processor.  However, we know nothing about Apple’s new processor.  This means that if you do want to use the device how you want by, say… putting Linux on it… you’ll need to wait for someone to figure out how Apple’s processor works, and then wait for someone to be able to compile code for it.  Needless to say, that could take quite a while.  Woops!  Turns out I was wrong on this.  The A4 is actually based on the ARM architecture.  So, I’ll use a different, and slightly weaker argument.

9. No Flash

OK, so you’ve heard this argument before, but it’s worth repeating.  The iPad does NOT, and probably WILL NOT have Adobe Flash.  A large part of the web is based around the Flash platform, whether you like it or not.  It really has become a de-facto standard.  The counterargument of this point is that HTML5 and Javascript will make Flash obsolete in 2-3 years.  First of all, I’ll be surprised if HTML5 video is completely standard in 2-3 years.  Secondly, the problem with HTML5 video is that no one video format is supported by every HTML5-capable browser (http://diveintohtml5.org/video.html).  Until this gets fixed, we’re stuck with using another solution, like Flash.  Finally, there could be problems with HOW this gets fixed, and I hope the standard becomes OGV, but I doubt that’ll happen.  However, which format should be standard is an argument for another post…

The Good/The Smart: A New Market

Since I’ve got nine solid items on why the iPad is a terrible device, and you shouldn’t buy it, I suppose I should give Apple one thing: they’re ingenious.  Apple has created a new market.  The iPad clearly isn’t intended to replace your iPhone or iPod Touch, and it’s clearly not intended to replace your laptop.  It exists in a delicate balance between the two devices: enough difference to make you want it even though you have an iPhone, but underpowered enough to make you keep your laptop.  The problem is, I’m not really sure if there’s a need for this market.  Sure, Apple will try to convince you that you need the iPad, but I don’t see the market existing.  What am I going to do with a device that’s too big to carry around with me everywhere, but not powerful enough to replace my laptop?  If I’m going to be carrying a bag around anyway… I might as well just bring my laptop.

Or, better yet, I’ll buy a netbook instead of an iPad.  I can do whatever I want with it, and it’s more portable and has a longer battery life than my laptop.  Even better… I’ll get one of these.