As the old lyric goes, “You can’t always get what you want.”

Many Android smartphone and tablet owners know that all too well. Ice Cream Sandwich (AKA Android 4) was meant to be the upgrade that bridged the gap between cellphones and tablets. Since Honeycomb (Android 3) was for tablets only, that has left many smartphone owners especially smarting, as they’re still stuck on Gingerbread (Android 2) for now. So you can imagine the great and mighty lure of Ice Cream Sandwich.

And yet, here we are, with the promise of Android 4 failing to be delivered to the hungry masses.

Why do you suppose that is? Why wouldn’t every manufacturer be jumping on the chance to deliver the Ice Cream Sandwich upgrades promised, implied, or alluded to?

Well, good news, and bad news! Sony finally answers that question for us. Unfortunately, it’s not chock-full of good news.

As it turns out, upgrading your Operating System is no simple thing. As Microsoft well knows. What may be “capable” is not necessarily what is “comfortable”. Because Android 4 isn’t just a collection of bugfixes and new polite features. It involves a few significant kernel changes. Such as the SQL database interaction has been moved from a native Android layer to the more generic Java layer. Programmatically, it’s a more “open source” direction that makes sense. But performance suffers, slowing down many apps. You might not notice it so much on a shiny new multicore 1+GHz ARM processor, but on an older model cellphone from when Gingerbread was big news, that performance lag can be quite noticeable.

Further, other similar changes to the kernel is that graphics hardware acceleration is turned on by default. This is great if your app happens to actually use it. But in order to use the hardware accelerated graphics an app has to load additional graphics libraries. This means that they’ll eat up more RAM. And if each app is using a little more RAM than it used to because at the kernel level hardware graphics acceleration was turned on, well then, that accumulates into a considerably larger amount of memory consumed across the whole device. Why that matters so much more in Android I’ll bring up in a minute.

Also using more of the CPU and RAM is just common to the upgrade of an app. You use what you have available because it lets you do more. So each app’s developer will tend to take advantage of the increase in system resources available for the “average” device so that they can make more interesting things happen in their app. But what happens when you take these resource-hungry apps and put them on an old PC phone? It means they run slower. And again, that memory usage increase is especially noteworthy in Android. (Again, I’ll get to explaining it soon. I promise.)

The increase in resource usage is so great in fact, that just for example, Android’s web browser now uses between 20MB and 30MB more RAM in Ice Cream Sandwich (Android 4) than it did in Gingerbread (Android 2).

Okay then, so why, exactly, is all of this RAM usage important?

On a PC’s operating system, it’s not such a big deal. That’s because PCs have a concept called “virtual memory”. It allows them to use the PC’s hard drive as a (very slow) stand-in for a shortcoming in available RAM. Hard drives are dead slow compared to memory, but it’s better than simply crashing when you run out.

But on Android, running out of memory is an entirely different matter. When Android runs out of memory it tries to close hidden and background processes and apps to free up more RAM for you to run your current app with. And when those run out, it keeps closing more and more, working its way towards the foreground.

You see, Android doesn’t have “virtual memory” for emergencies. This is most likely because Android devices use Flash memory for their “hard drive”, which has a limited number of write operations. (Unlike a real hard drive which has a nearly infinite number of write operations.) So to keep your device functioning for as long as possible, it tries to write to the Flash memory as little as possible. Using virtual memory as a backup for running out of RAM can result in an awful lot of writing to a hard drive. Good on PCs. Bad on phones and tablets, where no one would like it if permanently broke your hardware by writing too many times.

So Android tries to free up RAM by closing things that you (hopefully) won’t notice are missing, to make it possible to run the app(s) that you will notice.

At best this just means that when you close an app, Android notices that memory is available again, and re-opens all of those hidden or background processes and apps that it had closed to free up memory for you. This means as memory becomes available again, or disappears again, things will tend to slow down as Android juggles what is running and what isn’t. Hopefully only slow down a little. In the case of an old phone without much RAM, potentially slow down a lot.

Worse though, is the worst case scenario, where Android is finally pushed to close something that is actually important. That’s when your Android device not only starts being really slow, but can actually behave quite strangely, or even just flat out crash on you.

So there you have it. That is why old dogs aren’t learning new tricks. If your old phone has a fast processor and lots of RAM, like a new tablet would, then it can run Ice Cream Sandwich just fine. But, uh, just how many old phones do you know that actually have all that? So chances are, if you tried to put Ice Cream Sandwich on your old Gingerbread phone, you’re going to see things running very slowly. Or worse, crashing. All for want of more power. And since you can’t just pop open your phone and add a stick of RAM like you can in a PC, you’re pretty much SoL.

As so often the case with computers, if you want the latest operating system, you’ve just going to have to bite the bullet and buy a whole new machine.

You would think that having learned that lesson with PCs, smartphone/tablet software engineers would have learned the important lesson of better resource management. But I guess not.

So you might think that you want Ice Cream Sandwhich on your old phone, but the unfortunate reality is, if you got your wish, you’d probably be miserable and want to revert back to Gingerbread toot suite.

“Sometimes, you might find, you get what you need.”

Gingerbread may not be the latest and greatest, but it’s better than slow and crashing by putting the resource-hungry Ice Cream Sandwich on an old Android device that lacks the resources needed.

Microsoft would like to remind us that Windows Vista Service Pack 1 support has ended, and if you’d like support on Vista, you really should upgrade (for free) from SP1 to SP2. It’s easy. Just run Windows Update.

Or, better yet, upgrade to Windows 7. (Microsoft’s suggestion, not mine. See?)

As self-serving as Microsoft’s suggestion of upgrading from Windows Vista to Windows 7 may be, I find myself in the rare position of actually agreeing with them on that. Yes, it costs money, but let’s face it, Windows Vista is a joke. It’s Windows ME2. Do you really want to be stuck on it?

Well, your choice. Either way, Microsoft’s point is that Windows Vista SP1 is officially dead to them.

No surprises there, as Microsoft probably wishes everyone would just forget that Windows Vista ever existed. Heck, I wouldn’t be surprised at all if support of Windows Vista ended with Service Pack 2 and Windows XP actually outlived it!

Speaking of, if you’re one of those people holding on to dear life to Windows XP (and I even fall into that category to some extent) the Windows XP support will end… One day… Maybe… If it isn’t extended again. I guess over in MS World, now that Windows 7 has finally given people something stable and usable to upgrade to (since Windows Vista failed miserably on that front) we’re all supposed to upgrade to Windows 7. (Except for those of us who can’t, of course.)

Here’s the really odd thing though. Microsoft claims that Windows XP will indeed die. It has less than 1000 days less of its extended support. Officially, on the 8th of April, 2014, Microsoft will no longer provide security patches, hotfixes, etc. for any version of Windows XP. I get that. It’s something of a bummer for those of us using it on low-powered low-memory laptops and netbooks where Windows 7 is a less-than-convincing “upgrade”, leaving us … well, SoL. Not to mention those of us just keeping old PCs alive! It’d be one thing if Windows 7 could actually run as well as Windows XP on an old or budget system, but it’s another thing entirely when it can’t, and in even more cases where Windows 7 can’t be installed on the box at all!

But things take an even stranger turn, because along come the rumors and innuendo of Windows 8. Microsoft exec Tami Reller just told folks at Microsoft’s Worldwide Partner Conference 2011 that if a PC could run Windows 7, it could also run Windows 8. It’s an assurance to PC makers (and consumers) that anyone who is running Windows 7 now will be able to upgrade easily to Windows 8. You won’t have to worry about memory or processor speed at all. (Which could be a Microsoft first since it left the concept of Windows as a DOS shell behind!)

However, that raises an odd question in my mind: What about the army of folks still on Windows XP? Can they upgrade to Windows 8?

Why do I ask that?

Why do I think that they even could if they can’t upgrade to Windows 7?

Simple!

Windows 8, supposedly, will not just be available for your PC, but also for your ARM-based tablet! And let’s face it, Android tablets are not running Windows 7 for a reason. (Well, a couple of them.) It’s not just a matter of ARM vs. x86, but also of resources. Linux and Linux-based OSes such as Meego, sure. Windows 7? Nuh-uh!

And Intel is still pushing hard for Atom to replace ARM in Android tablet manufacturer’s minds. Will it? I doubt it. It’s like swatting a fly with a … hardcover book. But a Windows 7 tablet, that’d be spiffy … if it could run faster than molasses in January. Which it can’t. (I would know, as I have an Atom-based tablet. I technically can install, but if I thought it was already slow running Windows XP…)

But if Windows 8 could run well on low resources like on a tablet?

Because let’s face it, Windows is a resource hog compared to Android or iOS as an operating system goes. We’re even seeing some grumbling from WebOS tablet users that the OS itself is sluggish. The performance of the OS on a dinky little tablet processor makes a world of difference. One that Windows 7 just can’t even try to compete. So if Microsoft wants people to actually bother putting Windows 8 on tablets, it’s going to have to trim up that kernel. Will Windows 8 be split into two worlds: PC running kernel-heavy like Windows always is and tablet running kernel-lite like Windows CE or Windows PHONE 7? Or will Windows 8 actually be lean by design and work for anyone and everyone equally well with the same kernel for all?

If the latter then it would be a Microsoft first! Which makes me very doubtful.

But it would be an extremely welcome change, especially as a lightweight kernel from Microsoft that still ran PC software might even just give all of those aging computers running Windows XP an actual upgrade path! If Microsoft were interested in listening to what customers want (instead of just telling us what we need) Windows 8 could possibly be the savior of Windows XP users who would like to upgrade, if only Microsoft would make an OS that they could actually upgrade to.

I wouldn’t hold my breath on it though. Because that just isn’t the Microsoft way of doing things. Even if it would make sense. And sales. Lots and lots of sales.

Solid State Drives (SSDs), they’re the best thing since sliced bread … at least for mobile computing.  With no moving parts, they’re supposed to be longer lasting and impervious to being banged around and dropped, ideally suited for portable computing devices like laptops, notebooks, netbooks, tablets, UMPCs, and even smartphones.

But are they really better than g-force damage-prone traditional Hard Drives (HDs)?

According to an article from the Mac Observer, using information gleaned from a French source, the answer is: no.

Of course that’s the quick and easy answer.  Keep in mind, the source is hardly a broad industry-wide examination of SSD vs. HD, so it’s not really so definitive.  It does however offer a basis for the beginning of an examination, and the results are actually quite surprising.  The traditional hard drive in their study had a failure rate of 1.94%, where as the solid state drive had a higher failure rate of 2.05%.  The difference is not staggering, but it is surprising.

Traditional hard drives spin platters around at high speeds, much like record players (or for you young folk, CD players) using heads to read and write information magnetically.  All of this movement, the spinning platters and more often, the moving heads, needs to be incredibly precise.  Movement can disrupt the process, especially high g-force impacts such as dropping the hard drive.  (Or the device containing the hard drive.)  Errors happen, as do failures.  Even though the technology in hard drives has improved dramatically over the years, in an ever increasing effort to mitigate errors and damage from g-forces as hard drives are moved or dropped, nothing is ever 100% fool proof.  So the use of these highly mechanical hard drives in a laptop or netbook that is going to be jostled around, tossed, dropped, etc. has been seen as something less than desirable with the advent of solid state drives.

Because SSDs do not operate on the same principle.  Instead of spinning platters and moving heads, SSDs just have memory chips, lots and lots of memory chips.  Like USB flash drives on steroids, SSDs are just one big electronic memory storage device with no moving parts.  They can be juggled, tossed, dropped, without affecting them or the data stored in memory.  So this would make them perfect for portable computing, right?

Well, maybe not!

They may not have mechanical failures, but apparently they still have failures all their own regardless of g-forces.  In at least this one data mining study, SSDs have more failures in fact than all of those laptops with HDs being tossed about and dropped.

Granted, SSDs are still rather in their infancy, compared to the long-in-the-tooth HD.  So hopefully SSD technology will continue to improve, becoming far more reliable.  The idea, theoretically, holds a lot of merit for portable computing.

But is it worth the considerable cost to replace your netbook’s traditional HD with a SSD?  The numbers, so far, don’t really suggest doing this.  You’d likely be better off saving money and investing in a traditional hard drive that you can be sure of the quality of, should the one that came in your device fail.  At least for now, while SSD technology is still so new.  That seems to be what the numbers show.

One day though, when solid state drives are sufficiently iteratively improved, I’d be surprised if anyone still used hard drives in laptops.  I can see their merit in stationary computers like desktops and servers, but for portable computing SSDs are the way to go.

Eventually.

Just not, apparently, today.

Dell, they’re the company that got a lot of attention in the business world for a model of manufacturing and delivery that would make any industry proud.  But perhaps the time for Dell’s pride has passed.

We start off Dell’s new world of woes with their shipping motherboards infected with malware.  Yes, that’s right.  The Dell PowerEdge R310, PowerEdge R410, PowerEdge R510, and PowerEdge T410 server motherboards recently shipped to customers after service calls for faulty hardware turned out to be infected with the W32.Spybot worm.  The computer virus was hidden in the onboard flash storage and would infect unprotected Windows machines if Dell Update Packages for Unified Server Configurator (USC) or 32-bit Diagnostics were executed.  Though Windows Server 2008 (and presumably Windows Vista and Windows 7, should anyone ever install those on these server motherboards) theoretically are safe thanks to Microsoft’s recent additions to security in Windows, there are no guarantees.  Especially with older versions of Windows.  And doubly especially should you for some reason not be running your typical security suite including anti-virus software.

The worm is hiding in the flash memory itself, suggesting that a simple firmware update would not actually clean the infected mobos.  Also suggesting that disabling autorun or otherwise preventing this “drive” from mounting would protect anyone with an infected part.

No other Dell motherboards are infected, including Dell’s production stock.  Only their replacement service parts were infected.  No non-Windows operating systems are vulnerable, so you *nix users are completely safe, as usual.  And, of course, the infected mobos are now pulled from their supply chain.

Dell blames “human error” of course.  (As if it could be anything else?)  They are giving no explanations, and they’re mostly on the hush-hush about it all, only phoning affected customers.  No letters.  No official webpage detailing the risk and its mitigation.  Loverly.

Fortunately it’s an old worm, and protection against it is pretty much a given these days.  You’d really have to be trying or completely oblivious to get infected with that one.

As bad as that is however, that’s not all.  As research into it revealed some documents unsealed after a lawsuit with Dell over allegedly known problems with its OptiPlex boxes, 11.8 million of them, shipped between May of 2003 and July of 2005.  An internal review by none other than Dell itself had discovered that 97 percent of these boxes would fail in less than three years because of faulty capacitors from Nichicon.  (Bad caps again?  Really?!)

Dell further compounded the OptiPlex problem by replacing the motherboards with the bad caps with, yes, you guessed it, the very same line of motherboards with the very same leaking capacitors, almost guaranteed to fail.

That’s actually kind of expected, all considered.  There was a really bad stretch of faulty capacitors, rumor has it due to industrial espionage stealing an incomplete formula and selling it to a large number of manufacturers.  And of course one tends to replace parts with the same parts.

No, what made this one especially litigious was that, according to the New York Times, Dell not only knew of the problem and refused to toss their stock of faulty mobos, but they even told their own employees, “Don’t bring this to customer’s attention proactively,” and, “Emphasize uncertainty.“  The official Dell word on the bad mobos even went so far as to state to lawyers, “We need to avoid all language indicating the boards were bad or had ‘issues’.”

Ouch!

All this from the darling Dell.

Is it any wonder why I choose to build my own PCs with my own selection of parts then?

Okay, so yes, it’s easy to pick on Microsoft.  They’re a big target.  And by that I actually don’t mean that they’re a big company, even though they are.  Or that they have a large user base, which obviously, they do.  I mean that they screw up a lot.  There’s pretty much always a Microsoft bug or “feature” threatening computer security.  They’re a big target.  And perhaps it is because they’re a big company with a lot of users, meaning they have all sorts of resources that most companies don’t, and yet still put out such faulty software, that makes them so fun to poke a stick at.

But to be fair, other companies have problems too.

Take Mozilla for example.  They just released update version 3.5.8 for their popular web browser, Firefox.  It fixes a memory corruption hole, a heap corruption vuln, and a bug in their HTML parser.  As well as some minor performance tweaks and stability updates.  Which is good.  But they were also just hit with the exploit of a critical vulnerability that triggers a heap corruption in Firefox version 3.6.  It is known to work on Windows XP and Windows Vista.  It is not the same heap corruption flaw that was just fixed by version 3.5.8.  And it is indeed being used in the wild by hackers.  Let’s see how long it takes Mozilla to close this hole.

And then we come around to Adobe.  The Adobe Download Manager ActiveX control to be specific, which is used to install Adobe software such as Flash and their ever popular Reader for viewing PDF files.  (We’ll overlook that this ActiveX control is only used when you download Adobe products using Internet Explorer.)  This Adobe Download Manager suffers from a nasty security hole in which it theoretically allows a hacker to download and install any bit of software that they like onto your PC.  Umm … with one little caveat.  You, the user, have to click on a malicious link on the Adobe.com webpage to make it happen.  And considering how likely Adobe.com is going to be hacked to create these malicious links to lure you in…  Oh, and don’t forget, the Adobe Download Manager also removes itself from your computer once your official Adobe install has completed and you reboot your PC.  But still, it’s potentially dangerous.  If you overlook those mitigating factors anyway.

So, um, yeah.  Other software companies also occasionally have bugs in their code.  Or features that aren’t as secure as they should be.  Microsoft isn’t the only security offender in the world.

But even with that said, and fairness shown, it’s still pretty hard to compete with Microsoft, no?