Tech.It.2.Me->{By.Anton.Perez}

I’ve had my Yahoo! screen name since the mid 90s and my Google screen name since its beta days. Both of of them allow you to customize your own, personalized home page Web 2.0 style. That is AJAX technologies and support for gadgets/widgets is available and extensively used for a more superior, less lag time user experience.

Of the two, I favor iGoogle more mainly because it is ad-less. This means no ads appear on your “home page,” unlike My Yahoo!’s where huge banner ads appear on the top of the page. It’s understandable that ads result in a steady cash flow, but they’re just plain eye sores.

I particularly like iGoogle’s “You might also like…” widget option, as it helps me choose the coolest or most useful gadget (this is subjective of course) out of the gazillion gadgets; mighty handy.

Additionally, the themes available are better looking and more streamlined than My Yahoo!’s; for example, a nice feature is the theme’s top banner changing color and activity based on the current time. I’m currently using the “Tea House” theme. It’s nothing spectacular but quite interesting and fun, which makes me want to go to “my home page” more frequently. =0)

One thing I’d like to see on iGoogle, however, is My Yahoo!’s AJAX/JavaScript feature where onmouseover the details of that text is shown in a modal-type window (not available on everything, though). Yeah, iGoogle’s page has the ‘+’ ellipses to do that but My Yahoo!’s is way easier to use.

To make things easier, I’ll list and compare these two giants’ personal home page services/features [of what I can remember or notice] side-by-side:

Interestingly, I read this article stating that men use Google, while women use Yahoo!. So is it just because I’m a man that I prefer Google over My Yahoo!? No, I don’t think so; from my day to day use/experience, I find myself more productive and in-tune with iGoogle.

Gadgets, gadgets; don’t you love ‘em? Apple (read: Steve Jobs) has apparently made official the new, upcoming iPod, labeled iPod touch.

It practically looks and works like an iPhone except for the phone features, e.g., “flick through your photos”, “slide to unlock,” etc., although the lower “main” icons seem to be on top of a desk (with reflection). Pretty nice.

Further reading state that the iPod touch will initially come in two flavors: $300 for the 8 GB and $400 for the 16 GB. To read more about it, check out the post on Engadget.

I personally think the storage size is a demotion compared to the current iPod variations currently out there (e.g., 30 GB iPod Video). What I’m really trying to say is: Why won’t Apple offer a 30 GB iPod touch? It’s really only a hard drive in there, right? Hmmm…go figure.

9/7/07 9:52 AM Update: Apple Gives $100 Store Credit to iPhone Customers

For the iPhone fans out there, the 8 GB is now – get this…$399 from $599. The 4 GB,  on the other hand is now $299, which Apple will be taking off the market (buy it while supplies last).

This sucks for the early adopters as they’ve just been had by Apple. Tsk, tsk, tsk…

Read more at Engadget.

Most people I know favor AMD processors over Intel. I myself have tried both and like AMD more – other than the Intel Core Duo on my Mac, which I’m very happy with. =0)

I’m posting an excerpt that I read on The Register regarding AMD’s less power-hungry processor (over Intel):

Computer performance consulting firm Neal Nelson & Associates claims that AMD-based servers have beaten Intel in 36 of the 57 power efficiency tests it has conducted. The tests put an AMD Opteron-based server up against an Intel Xeon-based server.

The firm asserts the report was not funded or sponsored by any outside company or group. Tests were performed on servers configured with 2GB, 4GB, 6GB and 8GB of memory using various transaction processing load levels.

The results show that under certain configurations and load levels, the Intel server was 2.4 to 11.7 per cent more power efficient. But in a majority of cases, the AMD server was 9.2 to 23.1 per cent more efficient.

Perhaps more significantly, when the systems were idle and waiting for  transactions to process, the AMD server was 30.4 to 53.1 more power efficient. If accurate, it’s a noteworthy figure, considering many servers spend the most of their time waiting for work.

On the whole, NN&A’s tests showed that Intel’s power efficiency decreases as memory size increases. Conversely, AMD’s power efficiency increases as the memory is upped.

The firm uses a home-cooked benchmark — where web transactions are processed against a server configured with Novell’s SuSE Linux Enterprise Server, the Apache2 web server software, and the MySQL relational database.

The firm said they conducted the test in response to a statement made by Intel CEO Paul Otellini in July, where he claimed Intel was the leader in power efficiency.

“It appears Mr. Otellini’s statement is inconsistent with the test results,” said Nelson.

Intel, of course, disputes the results.

“The report doesn’t measure our latest Xeons, or quad cores,” said Intel rep Nick Knupffer in an email. We have 2 GHz quad cores in the market at 50 watts, 12.5 per core!”

“The report ignores performance, in that you’d use less Intel servers to get the same job done, meaning less electricity is needed.”

“We stand behind all our energy efficient claims, period. For those IT managers who don’t do their own in-house testing, we recommend that each look at the 100s of independently verified benchmarks and reviews that exist for the most credible assessment.”

In other words, test it out for yourself!