Most people I know have no idea that they can go out, as of tomorrow, and purchase a copy of the new Microsoft Operating System: Windows Vista. In fact, most of my friends and family don’t really care (especially those of them who have recently converted to using Macs).

For those of you who might care, you can go to the official propaganda site for Microsoft: The Windows Vista Home Page. There is even a link there that will let you watch Bill Gates introduce the new version of Microsoft’s flagship. The official site also links you to places to buy the new Operating System (OS) as well as a tool to tell you whether or not your old computer is just too old to run the new OS. I haven’t watched the video yet, though I do occasionally find Bill Gates to be entertaining.

I have, however, done some looking into the various editions of the new OS. It’s certainly more confusing than previous sells of Windows — not the software itself, but the way Microsoft is selling the software. There are several different editions now, and not just “Home” and “Professional” as there were with Windows XP. Now there is Vista Home Basic, Vista Home Premium, Vista Business, and Vista Ultimate. Personally, I prefer anything with the word “Ultimate” in it, but the problem, for me, is it’s more expensive than the other versions.

Here’s a breakdown of a list of “features” courtesy of CNET.com: What’s in Your Windows Vista? - CNET Reviews

The chart you’ll find there doesn’t, sadly, include the price differences between the different versions. It also doesn’t include info on two versions of the OS that you probably won’t be able to find: Vista Starter and Vista Enterprise. Starter is only for impoverished people outside the USA; Enterprise is only for those people on the opposite end of the economic spectrum — big businesses. Oh, and if you want to pay some extra $$$, you can get Windows Vista Ultimate Signature Edition — it is actually signed by Bill Gates himself!!!

Here is the price breakdown (courtesy of CompUSA):

• $99.99 - Windows Vista Home Basic Upgrade
• $159.99 - Windows Vista Home Premium Upgrade
• $199.99 - Windows Vista Home Basic
• $199.99 - Windows Vista Business Upgrade
• $239.99 - Windows Vista Home Premium
• $259.99 - Windows Vista Ultimate Upgrade
• $289.99 - Windows Vista Ultimate Upgrade Signature Edition
• $299.99 - Windows Vista Business
• $399.99 - Windows Vista Ultimate

Personally, I’d like to know where the Windows Vista Ultimate Signature Edition (non-upgrade) can be found. Sarcasm aside, essentially no one will care about the prices on the full/non-upgrade editions, because if you’re going to get a new PC, it’ll come with Windows Vista. From the reviews I’ve read (since I don’t have this yet and won’t get it until I can afford it…meaning several more months or years…I’m still running Windows 98 on one computer because Windows ME is AWFUL and I don’t want to fork out for XP), there is no reason to not get the new system on your new computer. But there’s also not much of a reason to upgrade, unless you just really want to be on the “cutting edge” of technology. Of course, if that’s you, you probably already know that Vista really isn’t much different from XP — the two Operating Systems are about as different from one another as Internet Explorer 6 is different from Internet Explorer 7.

If anybody does actually get Vista anytime soon, leave a comment with your thoughts. I’d love to hear from some actual users of the new system!

I miss the days of Dale Murphy, when one of the best baseball players of the ’80s promised a disabled girl that he would hit a home-run for her and delivered on his promise by hitting two. Murphy, who mostly played for the Atlanta Braves (who stunk in the ’80s), was MVP twice in a row, won five consecutive Gold Glove awards, and led the National League from 1980 to 1991 in home runs and runs batted in. He was also outstanding off the field, refusing to allow his money or celebrity status to lead him to compromise his integrity. He never took illegal drugs; I don’t think he even drank.

Today, though, you’ve got Barry Bonds. I used to like Bonds — I readily recall the times when he would go “30-30″, hitting 30+ homers and stealing 30+ bases in the same season. Bonds used to be fast. Now he’s just juiced…I mean…big and slow.

With the recent Baseball Hall of Fame vote putting Cal Ripken Jr. and Tony Gwynn into the Hall of Fame, the big news was not how deserving both of those players were at being selected. No, the big news was that Mark McGwire did not make it. Then, shortly after, Barry Bonds talks to reporters and says that he thinks that McGwire and the infamous, gambling Pete Rose belong in the Hall of Fame. Forget the fact that Rose was banned from playing baseball and that McGwire has brought more shame than fame to the previously venerable sport (well…mostly venerable, at least before the strikes of last decade).

What’s even sadder than Bonds’ view on those who have been excluded from the Hall of Fame — which makes sense given that he’ll face some of the same hurdles as McGwire does when he (Bonds) retires — is the seeming carelessness he displays about breaking Hank Aaron’s career home run record. Bonds has hit more homers than Babe Ruth and now is “sure [he is] going to break the record this year.” He only needs 22 more, so he likely will smash right through the record of 755. Given the current animosity toward McGwire for his obvious use of “performance-enhancing substances”, and the apparent presence of those same “substances” in the performance of Bonds, Bonds should expect to meet opposition to his induction into the Hall of Fame.

Bonds ought to just retire now and save us all the headache of dealing with the contradiction of disallowing baseball’s home run leader into baseball’s HoF. The other option will be to create a new room in the Hall of Fame and call it the “Room of Shame”. Then you could stick Bonds, McGwire, and Rose in there together, with exhibits on how much they tarnished the great pastime.

Apple Corp. (formerly Apple Computer Corp.) recently announced not only their snazzy new iPhone (and promptly got sued by Cisco for stealing the name), but also revealed details on the Apple TV, beginning Apple’s move from the computer and the pocket to the living room, where they’ll have to compete with the likes of Microsoft, Akimbo, MovieBeam, and even TiVo and the cable TV companies.

After looking through the press releases and news stories on the Apple TV, which has not received nearly so much press as the iPhone, I thought it might be helpful to break down the differences between the Apple TV and an Xbox 360, since both devices are designed to bridge the gap between computers and living room entertainment, and since it’s always fun to pit Apple against Microsoft. With that goal in mind, here are some of the stats, side-by-side:

For either option, the DRM (digital rights management) needs to be a consideration. The Apple TV can only play iTunes media, while the Xbox 360 cannot play iTunes media. Thus if all your media is already stuck in the formats used by Apple, then you’ll have to use either an Apple TV or an Apple computer to play the media. That really only pertains to media purchased through the iTunes store of course - the CDs that you ripped should play through pretty much anything. If you use a Mac, though, you won’t be able to stream your media in any format to an Xbox.

If you haven’t purchased anything through the iTunes store, or if you have video in non-QuickTime formats such as Divx, then a Xbox 360 should be able to play your media. A problem with the Xbox 360 is the need to subscribe to the Xbox Live Gold service. That’s not a requirement to play media from your PC; it is a requirement to purchase media directly through your Xbox. A year’s subscription costs $49.99.

The Xbox360, can, of course, play video games, DVDs, and other media on its own. The Apple TV is basically a larger, non-portable iPod, minus the click-wheel. Because of this, and because the box retails for $299, some have suggested that you just hook up a computer, such as a Mac Mini, to your TV if you want to play iTunes media on your television. You can check out a comparison between Apple TV and the Mac Mini here.

Personally, the only compelling reason to get an Apple TV, unless you enjoy having ten different devices plugged into your television, is if all of your media is locked into the proprietary iTunes (”FairPlay”) format. The Apple TV is nowhere near a DVR or a media PC (like Windows Media Center). If all you’re looking for is to stream your music and videos, and if your media isn’t locked down by DRM technologies like FairPlay — which seem to mostly just prevent Fair Use — then there are other devices, besides an Apple TV, that can cover your needs, and soon you should be able to get your iTunes media off your computer and onto other devices. Those devices just won’t be made by Apple, and my bet is that Apple is not going to license the technology to Microsoft. So why not just pass on the Apple TV and wait for a DVR that can not only stream your iTunes media, but also play the latest, recorded episodes of your favorite shows. I wonder if you’ll be able to watch something like this weekends Saints v Bears playoff game, while you listen to your own soundtrack? If an Xbox 360 can let you play your own soundtrack during video games (not that you’d want to do anything to the Halo music), surely someone will let you do that with recorded television.

This morning in church I listened to Garnett Slatton talk about spending the morning with God — not in a time-consuming manner (since most of our time seems to be consumed with other things), but in a way in which we begin our day conversing with God. Hopefully by starting off the day with that conversation, we can keep it up throughout all that we do.

The “conversation with God” is another way of talking about prayer, which leads me to the question: what exactly is prayer? Is it simply a conversation between us and God? Is it us clearing our minds of our distractions in order to focus only on God, instead of on ourselves? Is it something sometimes, and something different other times?

I do believe that prayer is a conversation between God and me. I also have prayer before and felt like I heard nothing in response. That is not unusual. So when I feel like the conversation is more of a one-way thing, even when I am listening (since a typical response to this will be “you just must not be listening hard enough”), does that make the prayer less valuable? Perhaps my prayers will lead me to change. Certainly praying to God gets my mind off of my own selfish desires and onto him, and that’s important. Sometimes, though, I pray selfishly, focusing solely on my wants and needs, so what then?

Truly, the way prayer works is a deep mystery. Since we do not understand the connections that we have to God, how can we hope to understand how or even why prayer works?

Of course, that’s not to imply that we should not seek to understand what prayer is or how it works. In fact, I’ve included a little flash thing, below, to show you what others have had to say about the subject. And please chime in with a comment: what do you think prayer is? how do you think prayer works?