VOTE EARTH!

Concerned about Copenhagen

Earlier this year we voted by turning off the lights for Earth Hour. This time, show your commitment by voting at their website. Do your part – it matters!

A rare trip to BIOS

I’ve been given a laptop for work! It’s a Dell Latitude D610, which is running XP (good!) and, though inferior to my current desktop in processor speed and RAM, at least can read DVDs – which the desktop can’t! And I hope it will decrease my carbon footprint somewhat.

Perhaps, most importantly, the screen is not ‘bleeding’ like the current one for the desktop (everything’s got a horizontal ‘trail’ to the right); and the whole setup is mobile.

I wanted to transfer a photo from my mobile phone via infrared, but strangely there was no Wireless Link (which I always thought poorly named) option in Control Panel, nor was any IR device listed.

Searching the Web, I learnt that I had to go into BIOS at boot-up, to enable the infrared port (disabled by default). Why?? For what reason would Dell provide functionality but turn it off at BIOS level? Quite twisted thinking, I think.

Which free Bible software?

Every now and then, in the course of work, I’ll check up on a Bible verse or passage. Usually I’ll click the Biblegateway bookmark and use their very usable website. But what if my Internet connection is down, as has happened a couple of times?

I downloaded and installed some freeware from the web to try out. Eventually, I’ve kept these two on my work PC:

The SWORD Project

This was the best of the software I tried that also has free dictionaries and commentaries. You visit the Crosswire website and download modules, either Bible texts or helps. The popular ESV translation is available; I also installed the Chinese Union Version. The KJV text is marked with Strong’s numbers and parsing. You can get JFB and Matthew Henry’s (concise) commentaries.

You can select your own fonts and colour schemes, which helps readability and aesthetics.

BerBible

This seemed the best of the Bible-only programs. Besides the ubiquitous KJV, you get the ESV, NASB and NKJV. That’s really a generous selection of modern mainstream translations!

The interface is simple but functional. The left-hand navigation is quite quick to use: simply scroll to click the book, then chapter, you want to view. There are 4 font options, and 6 web-browser-like size settings; not as customizable, but it works. You can change the background colour.

I’ve found these two to be both free and functional, and am happy to recommend them.

Canon S90 or Panasonic LX3

I’ve been eyeing the Canon Powershot S90 and it’s finally out in stores. Retails for about 690SGD. Ouch! With that sort of price, I’m tempted to buy the Panasonic Lumix LX3 – again. I owned the LX3, but sold it to buy my current camera, a Nikon D90. Now, I’m beginning to consider having a compact camera, in addition to the SLR. Which, if any, will it be?

The LX3 is a great street photographer’s camera, with a wide 24mm-equivalent starting point for its zoom. The maximum aperture is f/2 at that point, and only reduces to f/2.8 at the longest end, which is (a little unfortunately) a 60mm equivalent. Personally I’d prefer a 28-105mm-equivalent range, but I don’t know if Panasonic could do a constant f/2.8 maximum aperture for that range in a compact size?

The S90 is somewhat similar: it has that 28-105mm range, except that the maximum aperture goes from a macho f/2 to a rather nondescript f/4.9 at the long end.

Both these cameras have something that I’d like to have in one; unfortunately, each probably has some things I like and some I don’t like as much.

LX3

• Large maximum aperture throughout zoom range (f/2 at widest, f/2.8 at longest end – impressive)
• Hotshoe (though I bet I’d seldom use it, being able to use bounced flash is way better than being limited to a direct blast)
• High ISOs sharp and detailed but ’scratchy’ looking and over-sharpened at default (for the LX3 that I owned, I reduced the sharpening parameter)
• Useful simultaneous processing of JPEGs: you can shoot in colour AND black-and-white for each shot (and add a raw file too if you want!)
• Poor image preview: when using the record histogram, I found that the review histogram was different! That defeats the purpose of the record-mode histogram! I’m not sure if the updated firmware (2.1) resolves that.
• Bulkier, not exactly pocketable, and not possible to screw on a protective filter (I wouldn’t use the lens cap – too fiddly!)

S90

• Smoother, more compact size and form, with inbuilt lens cover. Definitely easier to draw, use and store.
• High ISO sample shots seen online have a more pleasant film-like grain, similar to images from my D90; they seem soft, though, and I wonder if post-capture sharpening can do much before it also brings out the noise
• Better zoom range for my shooting (I often use a 75-105mm equivalent on my SLR), and you can set up the click-stopped control ring to step between traditional focal lengths: 28, 35, 50 etc. (equivalents). Nice touch, Canon.
• Slightly smaller maximum aperture when zoomed in, however. From online reports, the S90 approximately matches the LX3 in maximum aperture from 28-35mm equivalents, after which it trails the LX3. At 60mm equivalent the S90 starts at f/3.5, slightly behind the LX3’s f/2.8. Not a deal-breaker, but it depends how you shoot and how dim your lighting is. If you shoot at the classic 28 and 35mm settings, the cameras are equally ‘fast’ aperture-wise.
• Some have found the rear control dial to be too loose resulting in accidental settings changes (but the LX3’s top mode dial is also too easily turned); this might be a deal-breaker for me if it’s as bad as the ones on the SX1 and SX10 IS

The jury’s still out… These are two photographer-friendly designs (albeit with their imperfections) with class-leading high-ISO image quality. Right now I’m slightly biased towards the S90 for its longer zoom range and being a camera my family could also pick up and use. But the LX3 has great image quality and ‘power-user’ features.

If you’re deciding between these two, or perhaps between more, I’d suggest you look at the test shots available on the Net, at the ISOs you’re likely to use most. You really should also have a hands-on in the store, as you’ll want to know if the controls and layout suit you, and if the cameras are responsive enough to the way you’ll use them.

Updated 14 Nov 09

Setting up Word 2007

(deep baritone): So, it has come to this…

My lighthearted offer to share some tips with my colleagues on using Word 2003 has taken a sobering turn: the office is going to make the transition to Microsoft Office 2007, and yours truly will be the guide to the great unknown…

Now it’s serious – it’s my job to make the move as painless as possible; to minimize loss of productivity or compatibility; despite my personal opinion that it may not be worthwhile installing Office 2007 even though we’ve already purchased the licenses. (My preference would be to stick with Office 2003 and see what Office 2010 offers.)

I’ve begun mapping out a strategy:

• Focus on Word 2007 and use that to give brief overviews of PowerPoint and Excel
• Cover the important tasks and ways to accomplish them, mainly through keyboard shortcuts and customizing the Quick Access Toolbar rather than the loopy Ribbon
• Teach ‘pro’ moves such as using styles, sections and output to PDF for distribution

The Office 2007 PDF output option is a great addition (but hardly novel), although I’ve been making PDFs since before that, using software such as Doro (which even allows you to edit fields and add encryption). I haven’t figured out why MS Office sometimes creates slimmer PDFs, sometimes bulkier, from a given document, compared to Doro; but for now I don’t have a favourite yet.

I’ve been using Word 2007 for a month now, at least, and I realized that, because of the way the Ribbon works (or doesn’t work), the quickest way to work in Word is probably by keyboard command, when you’re typing. Certain other commands could be kept from appearing and disappearing with the tabs that house them, by putting them on the Quick Access Toolbar. It’s not too hard to set up your own shortcuts and add useful buttons in the Customize section.

The Ribbon is touted as the major feature in Office 2007, but I find it irritating how the tabs change on their own, and it also takes too much screen space. You can hide the Ribbon by double-clicking it, but that essentially brings us back to the menu system again! Overall, there’s still too much clicking to do what I need to do; and I think it may be worse for slower learners.

What I do like about Word 2007 is the previews you get when formatting font sizes, styles, etc., although the options can sometimes block the item you want to preview. I also like the styles that make it easy to produce pretty slick-looking documents with little fuss. Not all of the Style Sets look nice, but some do.

I probably haven’t time to do a more thorough Word 2007 review, so this will probably have to do for one.

Update on 31 Oct 09

It’s been some months since the training I conducted, and since I first started using Word 2007. Looking back, here are some thoughts about it compared to the old version (which is a fading memory).

Style sets, fonts: one of the biggest improvements is cosmetic; I see slicker documents produced by my colleagues and me. It’s much easier to apply headings with visual previews. Good job, Microsoft. However, I find myself choosing the same few style sets because the others are too stolid, too American or whatever. The one I like best is probably Modern. Could we please have more spiffy styles please?

Better font defaults: also, thanks to Microsoft for ditching Times New Roman 12pt. I much prefer the new Calibri which is fresher and has more identity than Arial. The default 1.15 line spacing and 10pt para spacing are also good defaults for better legibility (though we probably would do okay with 1.1 and 6pts). Another welcome cosmetic improvement to documents.

Ribbon or menu: to me, the Ribbon is simply a more visual menu laid out horizontally. I’m okay with the concept, but don’t like a couple of things, such as how the active tab changes on its own, and how I have to aim for such a tiny spot to activate the detailed dialog boxes such as for paragraph and page layout formatting.

Overall, I think Word 2007 is a good version, though for our purposes at the church office it’s not clearly a must-have upgrade from Word 2003.