I decided to install the first release candidate of the new operating system from Microsoft called - as I’m sure most people know - Windows Vista. Like all users, I’m not a big fan of change so it took me a while to get used to where everything’s moved to. Much like Office 2007, things are more logically organised, it’s just that when you get used to them one way it’s hard to adapt to the new way, even if it’s more logical.

Once I got past that I was a bit underwhelmed initially to be honest. I like Windows XP and I’m quite happy with it. My initial impressions were that while there was some fancy new eye candy there really wasn’t anything groundbreaking that would make me say “ditch XP and go to Vista now!”. However under the hood, an incredible amount of work has gone on to make Windows more secure and run faster.

In terms of security, frankly I found all this User Account Control to be a pain in the ass so I disabled it. The idea is that you run software and it’s run as a restricted user so it can’t do any malicious damage to your machine, unless it requests admin rights and then you’re asked if you want to grant them. This can be irritating when it pops up for everything you run (an exaggeration I know but it feels that way after a short while), and even more irritating when you run older software that unwittingly accesses “restricted” areas as part of its normal operation so stops working correctly. I found this with TextPad not being able to remember all of its settings, for example. You can opt to run applications as an administrator but it’s still a pain and gets in your way when using software not designed to use it (I guess a lot of software companies will have to release patches to fully support Vista). Since I know what I’m running, I just turned UAC off for now, I’ll take the risk!

In terms of performance it seems to be a lot faster than Windows XP, which is no slouch. I’m testing it on my trusty old dual P3-800 workstation with 1GB of RAM (which used to be BUILDMACHINE3 at a company I used to work for) and while the fancy Aero glass interface won’t render (the graphics card is ancient) it really does fly.

It’s a lot easier on the eye too. I can suffer from eye strain when staring at a computer screen for too long so sometimes wear glasses. With Vista I’ve noticed I don’t need them at all and I can stare at the screen for hours and have no eye strain whatsoever. They’ve obviously done something to the fonts and ClearType because it’s just so much easier to look at!

So it’s faster than XP, looks better than XP, has some fancy software that XP doesn’t have and a lot of redesigned GUI like the Start menu and control panel amongst others. I was looking forward to using it from now on. But I’ve hit a problem. “Find in Files” hangs Visual Studio 2003 in Windows Vista and it’s not likely to be fixed. You see, Microsoft are not going to support Visual Studio 2003 on Vista.

I can perfectly understand why. In previous versions of Windows Microsoft have gone to unbelievable lengths to preserve backwards compatibility with older software. The number of workarounds coded into Windows for bugs in 3rd party software is staggering. However since Vista has such a different security model to previous versions, some things are just going to break and in the interests of protecting end users in the future and moving the technology forwards, that’s a sacrifice they’re making. Were I in the shoes of those making the decision, I suspect I’d make the same call.

It’s very easy for someone to criticise and say “well they should just fix it”. But when you see the amount of work that goes into every feature that makes it into Windows (in short, anything ending in “bility”, such as reliability, localisability, internationalisability, compatibility, usability, testability, manageability, upgradeability and so forth), you have to admit that you just can’t do everything, you have to make judgment calls and do what you think is best. Putting a feature like Print Preview into Notepad would be a straightforward coding task, but to get it into the next version of Windows would take a hell of a lot of work and quite a few people - all of which takes time and money. They have to choose very carefully where to invest that time and money if they want to actually ship the product in the next century. Those who are quick to criticise clearly don’t appreciate what a massive undertaking shipping a new version of Windows really is - you just can’t get away without having such controls in place to ensure shipping a solid product. It would certainly scare the hell out of me!

I still use Visual Studio 2003 to develop John’s Background Switcher and some other bits and pieces. In fact that’s all I use it for since at work I use VS2005 and .NET 2.0. I’ve been tempted to move to VS2005 for many reasons including the number of bugs fixed in 2.0 that exist in 1.1, although I’ve not done it yet since .NET 2.0 penetration is nothing like as high as 1.1. I’ve posted a question on my discussion forum to see if anybody has any opinions, if not I suspect I will so I can keep using Vista!

However for the time being it means I won’t be running Vista exclusively since the only work I do on my home machines is VS2003 based and I seem to use “Find in Files” a surprising amount! It’s a shame because Vista really does look impressive and the more I’ve been playing with it the more I’ve liked what I see. And remember, I don’t like change, so for me to jump to a new version of Windows, I must be going to a better place…

Update (27 Feb 2007): Jim Salem found a fix on the MSDN forums for the Find In Files problem I mentioned with VS2003 on Vista - check the ‘Disable visual themes’ box on the Compatability tab of the properties for the shortcut to VS2003. Thanks Jim!

I met up with some ex-colleagues on Friday night. I met them when I started my first job in Leeds for a company who shall remain nameless and I remember the time fondly. Not for the work, because that sucked. My timing was out as when I joined them there wasn't really anything relevant to my skill-set for me to do (they were a sort of consultancy / body shop / pimping operation) and I was young and cocky so I was a tad pissed off to be sitting around reading rather than working with shiny new technology.

However all was not lost. You see we had table football.

As soon as the clock struck 12 we'd surround the table and the banter would begin. At times I could barely stand up for laughing such was the quick wit of some of the guys. Even when not playing it was hilarious to watch two protagonists trying to win the game, and if not the game then putting off the other one. Oh, and of course fighting like crazy to avoid the shame of a 10-0 hammering.

There was the power player, the skillful one, the show-boater, the people's champion (who's always the moral victor), the shoot-on-site one and of course the lucky one (I hate lucky people!). They all know who they are! I was never much good at it but it was a lot of fun and better than writing another tedious white-paper nobody was ever going to read. It certainly served to get rid of some of the frustration of the job!

So we met up for the first time in quite a while as I said (we've all kept in touch but just don't together often enough) and it was a real laugh. Even though 4 years have passed we were right back there discussing the finer points of goading an opponent to lose at table football and such like!

There are some people you meet and for a time you're really close, have a great time and are best friends. But when that time passes and you only meet up now and then, it's never quite the same again as the shared experiences are in the past. Fortunately with these guys it's like no time has elapsed at all and we picked up from where we left off. I guess that's my definition of true friendship. You don't need to work together or spend a lot of time together, but when you do things are just back the way they were.

And you know, I'm sure I dished out a 10-0 hammering one time to Nige… I just bet he's blanked the trauma of that out of his mind - but I never will! ;-) 

Normally at this time of year - when the nights are drawing in, the temperature is dropping and the leaves are falling - I'd be moaning about how the Summer should have been longer and that I'm looking forward to Spring already. But not this year. From a photography point of view, the fact that it's getting dark earlier means that sunset is earlier and so I don't have to wait until 11pm to get quality photos!

The best time for low light photography is around or just after sunset and as it's been dark so late I've been missing the joys of night photography. In fact since it was last Winter that I really got into photography, I've probably spent more time on night shoots than during the daytime. I was lucky enough to catch a beautiful sunset after a thunderstorm with my friend Ade the other night and got a whole load of shots like this one:

If it weren't for the fantastic light in the sky, this wouldn't make a particularly interesting shot and the more I take photographs the more I'm looking out for interesting light. It's what separates the ordinary from the extraordinary. And nice though warm, sunny days are, they're not as conducive to the style of photography I like as a dark, menacing Winter evening! (Okay, I'm just trying to be optimistic about the end of Summer, it's a survival mechanism).

Oh, I'll be continuing my photography tips series shortly. I made the mistake of saying my next article would be about exposure, which is undoubtedly the most tricky and complex photography subject so it's taking a bit of time. D'Oh!

While looking around a car boot sale the other weekend I looked at a box full of books and saw the title “Wedding Etiquette” on the spine of one of them. I took it out to have a look (and see where I went wrong) and was most amused to see the cover pictured right.

As you can probably tell by the photo, it was written in the 1960’s by Margot Lawrence so I wondered how out of date the advice contain within would be…

It’s actually been a very entertaining read and quite eye-opening in terms of the different attitudes to relationships and marriage from then to now. The youngsters today can learn a lot from literature like this - divorce rates are a hell of a lot higher now than then, as are the numbers of people living alone.

I’ll write a few posts on different pieces of advice that the irrepressible Ms Lawrence offers in her 1963 masterpiece so that you too may learn the lessons I now have. Firstly I’ll talk about the engagement itself.

On the subject of courtship she has this to say:

“Nowadays most young people require little guidance as to the formalities of courtship - indeed, such formalities hardly exist. An acquaintance develops into friendship, affection to love, and eventually the moment comes when they decide that they will get married… Most young people take the view, and even their elders would probably agree, that courtship is entirely their own affair.”

The trouble is, in these days of iPod’s, broadband, speed-dating, binge drinking and one-night stands, courtship is something that just doesn’t seem to happen and isn’t taken seriously any more. For shame. Getting to know your potential life partner is something you should take time and care over - not get shacked up with them within a month of meeting them in a sleazy nightclub when you went back to their place!

As for engagement:

“The first requirement of etiquette comes even before the engagement is formally announced, and that is, the customary interview between the father or guardian of the girl, and the young man she hopes to marry… At the interview, he should be prepared to state frankly his position and prospects; say enough to show that he has given some thought to how he can look after a wife and, later, a family; perhaps satisfy his prospective in-laws as to his own family background, education and general standing; and altogether show that he is a fit person to be entrusted with the girl as his wife.”

All too often marriage is impulsively rushed into without due consideration and fore-though which down the line can lead to problems. Hey, I’m as guilty as the next guy! I proposed on a whim in New Zealand without thinking it through - who’d have thought I’d eventually have to actually get married! But to have to justify what makes you fit to marry your partner, even to yourself, can be quite enlightening. The thought that it’s not some right you automatically have assigned to you by default might make you try a bit harder.

Apparently, when announcing an engagement (italics are hers not mine):

“The name of the bride’s mother must appear in the announcement, even if she is divorced and re-married. To omit it is only possible if there has been some kind of open scandal about her.”

Makes me wonder where Ms Lawrence learned that particular lesson from!

Another particularly poignant section discusses the Broken Engagement which is “an embarrassing ordeal for both parties”. Interestingly the book goes into details suggesting that the girl should return the engagement ring, but the most useful advice is about letters:

“The disposal of letters sometimes presents a problem. To return them may seem an unnecessarily dramatic gesture, but to retain them is usually unwise unless actual legal questions are likely to arise. Probably the most commonsense course is simply to burn them.”

I can see there’s no going back when you get on the wrong side of Ms Lawrence!

I’ll finish by quoting the section on the behaviour of the engaged couple - youngsters these days lack any of the respect, manners and self-control described here:

“Engaged people should be wary of adopting a too-proprietary air towards one another in public or of showing demonstrations of affection that may embarrass others. At the same time they must each make the happiness and welfare of the other their first consideration.

“It is a real breach of good manners for either to go out alone with, or partnered by, a member of the opposite sex. There is no harm in, say, an engaged girl whose fiancee is unavoidably absent, going to a club party or dance with a group of young people, but she should not go if it is the kind of group where the men and girls are formally paired off in partners.”

I’m guessing Ms Lawrence doesn’t believe that men and women can be “just friends”. Or maybe she was just bitter she never got invited to those sorts of parties!

So there, that’s your engagement sorted - next you can just get married right? Wrong! Ms Lawrence has a lot more advice to give. To be continued…

I've been a Movable Type user for a few years now and prior to the release of 3.3 I was considering making the switch to WordPress. This was primarily for the WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get) editor which meant I would no longer have to type in raw HTML when I wanted to insert a picture or a table. When 3.3 came out I realised that they hadn't added one so I thought I'd have a look on the net and see if there was another way to do it. And then I came across TinyMCE (which is what WordPress uses incidentally).

TinyMCE is an open source javascript control that can turn any text area on a web page into a rich text editor with only a couple of lines of code. Since it's pretty easy to write transformer plugins for Movable Type to change its appearance it was very straightforward to embed TinyMCE in the editor window like so (it looks like it should always be there):

All of a sudden I don't need to worry about HTML tags, previewing what the entries will look like, spell checking (it uses the Google spell checking API), creating tables and a whole host of other things I shouldn't even think about in the year 2006. It makes me wonder why SixApart don't include TinyMCE as standard…

Of course Movable Type, WordPress and their brethren don't just have to be for blogs. The 'My Software' section of this site also lives within Movable Type, was really easy to set up and trivial to make changes to.

When people ask me why I give away John's Background Switcher for free I just need to look at software like TinyMCE, see the amount of work that's gone into creating something so incredibly useful that's given away for nothing and think that I'm doing the right thing!

My passport finally expired and I was forced to get a new one. After much time spent meaning to fill out the form and apply for one I got around to it last weekend and incredibly my new one turned up this weekend. The first thing I noticed was that it now sports a much more up to date photo of me in it - you can see right what ten years does to you!

However, that wasn’t the most interesting thing I found about my passport. It turns out that I have one of these new-fangled biometric passports I’ve been hearing all about on the news. Apparently my photograph and the details on the photo page (my name, date of birth and so on) are written onto the chip so that you can wave the passport across a scanner and that information will just magically appear on a screen. The chip looks like this:

As an anti-fraud device it’s probably pretty good. The data is stored in an encrypted format (according to the leaflet) and can’t be written to again, so no changing the details. This means if someone steals your passport, while they may be able to put another photo on it, they won’t be able to change the details on the chip. Sounds cool.

But then I read the leaflet some more and came across the following section:

“From autumn 2006, we will interview all adults (people over 16) applying for a passport for the first time. In line with new European Union standards, we are also considering including fingerprints in biometric passports in the future.”

Now the first part is interesting as it’s likely to be an administrative nightmare and increase the time and cost of getting a passport. However, the second part unsettled me a little. If you want to live in some futuristic world where there’s no crime and everybody wears spandex, then you probably need the authorities to have everybody’s details: fingerprints, DNA samples and so on. This means that if a fingerprint is found at a crime scene, they can immediately tell who it comes from (since everybody’s prints are stored when they apply for a passport), then arrest them and freeze them in some high-tech prison facility. If you’ve got nothing to hide then you shouldn’t have a problem with it so the argument goes.

But for that the authorities would really need to have people’s best interests at heart, and as anybody who studies history knows, that is very seldom the case. All power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. But hey, I’ve got nothing to hide so maybe I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt. Until it’s too late!

This is the sixth in a series of articles discussing some of the photography techniques I've learned and employ when I'm out on a shoot.

I'm not good enough to look at a scene, decide what the best possible picture of it is, take the shot, go home, upload the photo somewhere and wait for the "Best Photo Ever Taken" award to turn up at my house. Instead I have to rely on the tried and tested technique of taking lots of pictures from lots of different angles, go home, look at them on the computer and see which, if any, I like.

Quite often I'll see a picture that I've just taken on the camera and think "this is a great shot, I can't wait to get home and look at it". But when I do it turns out to be a nothing photo that I delete straight away. Sometimes I'll take one, barely glance at it, get home and think "hey, that's pretty good!". So I've learned that there's no point paying too much attention to the photos as you take them (other than to check the exposure - which I'll talk about in the next article). You (well, I at least) can't tell which ones will work and which ones won't so take as many as you can and sort it all out when you get back. This is one of the wonders of digital photography, it doesn't cost anything to take 20 shots of the same thing from different angles - so there are no excuses!

Here is an example of some of the different shots I took of the same scene along with what I was trying to do:

	I wanted the railings to act as the main leading line to the bridge - which is the focal point of the shot. The river acts as a secondary leading line. I attempted to line up the top horizontal railing with the bottom-right corner of the photo but couldn't quite manage it without pushing the bridge too low in the shot.
	For this one I used a slightly lower angle which has the effect of taking the river out of the equation (since it's broken up by the railings it no longer acts as a leading line). I was trying to line up the middle horizontal railing with the bottom-right corner of the photo but I don't think it came out as good as the first photo.
	See the pattern? Now I'm lining up the top horizontal railing with the top-right corner of the photo. Again the railings act as a leading line, the river doesn't, but I don't think the shot works as the bridge is broken up completely by them. Looked good through the viewfinder but didn't on the computer when I got home.
	This is just the railings on their own. I was going for a vanishing point effect and again it looked better through the viewfinder than the end result. Although I rather like it, the shadows also lead you to the vanishing point. But the point is you don't know until you get home and have a proper look.

I took many more shots with wider angles, portraits and such like that day. Some of them worked, some of them didn't. The key is to not be afraid to try different things and keep at it. I've often found myself wanting to pack up and go home because it's too cold, too hot or I'm tired and / or hungry, but it's often worth persisting a bit longer and experimenting as you might get the odd gem or two.

Next: Getting Your Exposure Right.