I Really Like My Nexus 7 But I LOVE My iPad.

Just over two years ago, I was completely against the idea of 'tablets.'  I was not alone in questioning the value of a super-sized smartphone when we all have laptops.  But like everyone else in the universe, after playing around with an iPad, I had to have one.  Now I have the iPad 3 (I grabbed one the day it was released) and I couldn't be happier.  So when I heard all the hype about the Google Nexus 7, I was intrigued.  For the first time, I saw a viable iPad alternative in the Android sphere of influence. Every website and reviewer praised this as an inexpensive, powerful and sexy device.  So I used the excuse of Christmas to procure one, and I could be happier.

I wanted to ween myself off iPad dependence by giving the Nexus 7 my full attention for 3 weeks while I was visiting friends in Boston post-Christmas.  That's exactly what I did. And when I returned home, I rushed for my iPad.  There are several reasons for this. Let me explain each in turn.

Screen

The Nexus 7 has a very colorful display with 1280x800 pixels, but the screen is not nearly as bright as on the iPad.  It's difficult to compare the Retina Display to the Nexus high definition display, but Retina wins.  There is an extra level of sharpness that hard to see, but easy to feel (if that makes sense).  The only exception is with YouTube. Although there is an official YouTube application for the iPad, the built in YouTube app for the Nexus 7 displays videos with just a little more clarity that may be difficult to notice, but easy to feel (again, not sure about feeling versus seeing).

Size

I thought I would find a place in my life for a 7 inch tablet, but now I realize the only way I would travel with Nexus 7 would be with a 3G enabled version (and I'm not paying for that).  The value of storing this device in my coat or back pocket is drastically decreased without a good source of wifi.  If I'm traveling and need to research something or answer an email, I'm fine doing so on my iPhone 5. Three inches less, but infinitely more useful.

Speed

I haven't had much experience with Android devices before the Nexus 7, but I can see why everyone is impressed by Jelly Bean and Project Butter. It's fast, smooth and fluid...but not as much as the iOS 6.

I find myself needing to swipe across the screen fairly forcefully to move between screens on the Nexus 7. My iPad is significantly faster in navigating.  And I have experienced more crashes and unsuccessful downloads in three weeks with the Nexus 7 then any three week period with my iPad.

Apps and Integration

Everyone and their uncle has commented on the application selection deficiencies of Android, particularly with tablet dedicated apps. I won't say anything more than to agree that Apple has more high quality applications that are tailored for the iPad.

On the integration front, the tandem of an iPad and an iPhone is tough to beat.  I love being able to have my pictures, documents, texts, calendar appointments and reminders automatically synced to both devices. To my knowledge (which is minimal on this front), Samsung does not have such deep integration between the Galaxy tablets and the Galaxy phones and neither does Google with its Nexus devices.

Finally, Operating Systems

Call me a simpleton, but too much customization can befuddle me.  The vast majority of anyone's time on a smartphone or tablet is dedicated to using the apps, not customizing the app screen, widgets and background.  Apple makes the presentation of applications on screen simple and we reap the benefits.

Has anyone considered the reason iPhone is more popular than Android in the US is because of the simplicity? I believe the majority of Americans want the simple interface offered by iOS.  There is a strong minority that need the 'freedom' of Android, including many online reviewers, but they are still the minority.

I consider myself a man of the people, not the technology experts, and so I choose iOS.

MLB Offensive Comparison: Blue Jays vs. Angels

Spring training is just around the corner. It's time to get hypothetical and argue for the best offenses in the MLB without any justifiable facts other than previous statistics.  Let's look at the projected lineups for the Toronto Blue Jays and the Anaheim Angels.

Blue Jays
Toronto finally made some BIG moves this off season. I was beginning to think the Jays would never attempt to compete with the juggernauts of the East, especially with the rise of the Baltimore Orioles (although I'm not convinced they can repeat their success).  But then they sucked the life out of the Florida...I mean, Miami Marlins, took a chance with a steroid user in Melky Cabrera and sacrificed their farm system for the greatest knuckleballer EVER.


-Projected Lineup:
1  Jose Reyes  SS
2  Melky Cabrera  OF
3  Jose Bautista  OF
4  Edwin Encarnacion  DH
5  Brett Lawrie  3B
6  Colby Rasmus  OF
7  Adam Lind  1B
8  J.P. Arencibia  C
9  Emilio Bonifacio  2B

Let's look at some of these players in more detail.  First, Jose Reyes.  Last year was good, but not great, and I think Marlins owner Jeffrey Loria was expecting numbers like 2011 or 2006 (that was a magical year).  Instead, Reyes found himself with numbers similar to 2010; a .287 BA, 40 steals, 11 home runs, 57 RBIs, 12 triples and a .347 OBP.  Those numbers might improve with a solid lineup behind him, but I like to think the Mets got the best years out of him (2006-2008).

While 5-8 in the lineup have strong power numbers, it's Bautista and Encarnacion who will drive the offense. But I'm not a fan of projecting success off of one monster year and that's exactly what we have with Encarnacion.  Last year he socked 42 HR, 110 RBI, a .280 BA, a .557 SLG and 644 PA (the most in his career).  His best year otherwise was 2008 when he hit 26 HR, 68 RBI and other less than stellar numbers. The point is, I'm not comfortable with Edwin as Bautista's protection until he shows this kind of power early next season.

As for Bautista, he's legitimate.  After taking the world by storm in 2010 with 54 HR, 124 RBI and a .260 BA, he followed up with an equally impressive 2011 with 43 HR, 103 RBI, and a .302 BA.  Unfortunately, Bautista was hurt last year and played only 92 games with 27 HR and 65 RBI and a mediocre .241 BA.  But those are still good numbers and if healthy, I'm confident he can reproduce the previous two years of success.  But the extent of that success might depend on the the power Encarnacion produces.

Angels
These angels are ruthless.  After the mega-blockbuster signing of Albert Pujols last year, they throw even more money at Josh Hamilton (well technically less money than Pujols, but when contracts get near $100 million, I loose track). Looking at both their statistics from 2012, I was surprised by 1) how good a 'bad' year is for Pujols and 2) Hamilton's ability to stay healthy.


-Projected Lineup:
1  Mike Trout  OF
2  Erick Aybar  SS
3  Albert Pujols  1B
4  Josh Hamilton  OF
5  Mark Trumbo  DH
6  Howie Kendrick  2B
7  Alberto Callaspo  3B
8  Chris Iannetta  C
9  Peter Bourjos  OF

Albert Pujols...when I look at his lifetime numbers, I get a chill down my spine. He truly is "The Machine." He has smacked at least 30 home runs every year since he won the Rookie of the Year in 2001.  The past two years have been less than ridiculously awesome, including two years in a row with a sub-300 batting average after never ending the season with a batting average under .312 before 2011. Could he be starting his decline? At 32 year old, I certainly hope not.  I predict having Hamilton behind him in the lineup will go a long way to making him "The Machine" once again.  But if we see numbers like these again (which are still really good numbers), the 'decline' conversation will be in full swing (pardon my pun).
                                       
As for Josh Hamilton, he may not be a machine, but he is a "beastly beast" (a term my friend and I coined). Maybe his monster numbers from last year will translate into health and consistency. Those numbers include 43 home runs, 128 RBIs, 636 PA, .354 OBP and a .577 SLG.  But there are consistency issues which make me just a little nervous.  His numbers declined in the second half of 2012 and he didn't play well in the crucial Wild Card playoff game, going 0-4 with 2 strikeouts.  But it's Hamilton's inconsistent health record over the last three years, when he missed at least a full month of games each year, that drove his contract down to 5 years in a world where everyone wants job security for life.  But overall, I expect great things from him, "terrible, but great" (quote from Olivander in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone....it doesn't make much sense, but it was too good to pass up).

The Better Offense
I really feel there can be a case for either team having a better offense. Anaheim has 3 super stars in Trout, Pujols and Hamilton (and throw in Mark Trumbo for good measure), but Toronto has more players with generally better statistics than the overall lineup of the Angels. Let's look at a comparison of the lineups rating each player on a scale of overall offensive value to their team (1 to 10) and see which team is overall more offensively minded.
                              

Toronto	Score		Anaheim	Score
Jose Reyes  SS	6		Mike Trout  OF	10
Melky Cabrera  OF	7		Erick Aybar  SS	5
Jose Bautista  OF	10		Albert Pujols  1B	10
Edwin Encarnacion DH	8		Josh Hamilton  OF	9
Brett Lawrie  3B	6		Mark Trumbo  DH	8
Colby Rasmus  OF	7		Howie Kendrick  2B	5
Adam Lind  1B	6		Alberto Callaspo 3B	4
J.P. Arencibia  C	6		Chris Iannetta  C	5
Emilio Bonifacio  2B	4		Peter Bourjos  OF	5
Total Offensive Value	60		Total OffensiveValue	61

Although even my completely arbitrary rating scheme shows the Angels with the better offense, it's extremely close.  These rankings are for offense statistics only, so great defensive play and stolen bases were not factors.  The point is, the Angels 6-9 positions are weaker than the Blue Jays 6-9 positions. An opposing pitcher can think to himself, "Damn it, I've got to face Pujols, Hamilton and Trumbo, but at least I get a break after that...until Trout." The same cannot be said for a pitcher facing the Blue Jays.

I will be following these offenses very closely this year, as I am intrigued by the combinations of talent.  But no matter what we predict, anything can happen. That's why you play all 162 games.

Why Cody Ross is Making Scot Hariston a Jerk

Look at that face. How can you say 'you're not worth $10 million' to that face?

Scot Hariston has a very solid year for a team that desperately needed the right handed power.

G	PA	AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	SB	CS	BB	SO	BA	OBP	SLG	OPS

134

398

377

52

99

25

3

20

57

8

2

19

83

.263

.299

.504

.803

By playing 134 games and compiling 20 home runs with an average of .263, there is strong evidence for a salary upgrade. With the Mets, his contract was $1.1 million the past two years. Before that, most he made was $2.5 million with the Padres in 2010.  I think he deserves at least that, but NOT the salary of a comparable player, Cody Ross, whose numbers for 2012 are as follows:

G	PA	AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	SB	CS	BB	SO	BA	OBP	SLG	OPS

130

528

476

70

127

34

1

22

81

2

3

42

129

.267

.326

.481

.807

The numbers are similar, expect for one odd inconsistency that inflated Ross's stats.  Ross play 4 less games than Hariston, but managed over 100 more plate appearances and at-bats.

The Diamondbacks decided to screw over the Mets by giving Cody Ross $25 million over the next three years with a club option for 2016 that could bring the contract up to $34.5 million.  Is he worth that much? Not quite. Does it affect the value of Hariston? It shouldn't, but it will.

Look at me! I got the BIG money!

From 2006 (the first year playing a substantial number of games) to 2012, Ross has averaged:
136 games, 26 doubles, 17 home runs, 64 RBIs, .266 BA, and a .330 OBP.  Those are solid numbers. Now let's look at Hariston from 2004 and then 2007-2012. (he barely played in 2005-2006)

Hariston averaged 107 games, 17 doubles, 14 home runs, 40 RBIs, .245 BA, and a .303 OBP.

AND HE WANTS A COMPARABLE CONTRACT??????

Where's MY money!

I'm sorry, but the numbers speak for themselves. He has historically been inferior to Ross every way you slice the cake. Can he be expected to reproduce those numbers? Well first off, those numbers were not as good as they appear.  He had more than 70 at-bats in a month only twice in 2012 (David Wright, by comparison, had more than 70 at-bats every month).  In July with 74 at-bats Hariston his .297, but in September with 73 at-bats Hariston hit .192.  Yes, everyday players have ups and downs over the course of a season, but for someone who has never been an everyday player (and at 32 is in his prime looking downward), the risk is too great to offer almost $7-$10 million a year.

But thanks to those rattlesnakes, Hariston believes he deserves $$$$$ because Cody Ross got $$$$$.

The Mets NEED to re-sign Hariston to prevent themselves from being laughable next year, but they shouldn't (and frankly couldn't) pay more than a few million for 1 or 2 years.  If he can show himself as an everyday player, then he deserves more moola....Not yet.

Is Surface with Windows 8 Pro worth the $$$ ?

Microsoft is not off to a very good start with its push into the tablet market (at least, according to every blogger on Earth).  But with the introduction of a Surface tablet with a full version of the Windows 8 operating system, things could get a little more interesting.  A tablet that is also a fully functional laptop may be the future of personal computing, but can this new Surface stand up to the most popular and respect ultrabook available, the Macbook Air?

Here are the comparative specs for the baseline models of each:

-Macbook Air versus Surface Pro
Operating System
1.7GHz dual-core Intel Core - 3rd Gen Intel Core i5 (that's all it says online)
RAM 
4GB, 4GB
Storage 
64GB, 64GB
Display
11.6" high-resolution LEDbacklit, 16:9 (widescreen) versus 10.6" ClearType Full HD Display, 16:9 (widescreen)
Screen Resolution
1366 x 768 pixels versus 1920x1080 pixels
Dimensions
Height: 0.11-0.68in/Length: 11.8in/Width: 7.56in versus Height: 0.53in/Length: 10.81in/Width: 6.81in
Weight
2.38 lbs versus 2 lbs
Price
$999 versus $899


There are not many differences between the devices when you look at the raw specs and the Surface Pro has a much better screen resolution.  BUT you need to consider two important details that, in my opinion, give the edge to the MacBook Air.

First, the $900 price tag for the Surface Pro does not include a keyboard.  That will cost you $120 more for the Touch Cover and $139 for the Type Cover.  Also note that the keyboard will provide no support for the device whatsoever, so typing on anything but a table is out of the question.  And typing at night? Forget it, only the MacBook Air has a back lit keyboard of the two.  Why make such a big deal about the keyboard? Because the type of person who would spend this kind of money for the Surface Pro will be doing laptop-like work, which necessitates a good keyboard. And the Microsoft keyboard are pretty good.  I've tried them first hand. I just wouldn't spend $120 for one.

Secondly, the apps.  The app selection on the Microsoft Store is to Microsoft what Apple Maps is to Apple....and topic of endless ridicule by the technology world.  But it is also a crucial difference.  Apple has far better and much more software for tablets than Microsoft.  Even though the Surface Pro will be running a robust OS, they still expect you to look to their empty online store shelves for software.

But what exactly are we getting with the OS? On the Microsoft website, it specifically says a full "Office" experience for Word, Excel, etc. not a full "OS" experience, although it also mentions that Surface Pro can run all your applications from previous versions of Windows.  Until I see this in action, I'll remain skeptical that I'm getting a full Windows experience.

So for the price, the internal storage, the processing power and portability, the Macbook Air still reigns supreme.  If you really want a tablet for work and you really need Microsoft Office, then yes, get the Surface Pro. But if you're a normal person, wait to see what the future holds.

The Mets are All Wright

Finally, the Mets signed their home grown super star to a long term/life ending contract.  At 8 years and $138 million, this is the largest contract ever given to anyone by the New York Mets. It even trumps the mega-deal for Johan Santana in 2008, by $0.5 million, although that was only a 6 year deal.  Many baseball writers are claiming this is exactly what the Mets needed to move forward after years of fallout from Bernie Madoff and his personal vendetta against the world.  But now, we have our savior!

This is one good looking dude...

I only hope he decides to 1) stay healthy from now on and 2) go 30-100 when he's healthy for a full year (ahem....2012).  That's the part that really bothers me.  No one seems to be expressing concern of his stats from last season, namely 21 home runs and 93 RBIs in 156 games....that's not good enough for a franchise player making more than $16 million a year.  And don't argue that his stats were down because he had bad players around him. Remember 2010? Just as bad a team, but with 29 home runs and 103 RBIs from Wright. When you add the fact that David was hitting .350 for much of the first half and those final numbers become that much more worrisome.

AND he has only hit more than 30 home runs ONCE in his career. I know home runs as a statistic is completely outdated and apparently useless if you talk to WAR followers (much too confusing for my taste), but still... It almost feels like the Mets were saying "David Wright had some really good years when we just gave up (2006-2008).  Now that he's turning thirty with two prior major injuries, should we give him big money?  We kinda have to, we have no one else to give big money to and we can't have a franchise player without paying more than he's worth when his bones begin to disintegrate at age 38 and if we don't have a franchise player....we look silly." 

Who in this picture deserves the big money???

But in the end, I am glad they were able to keep David long term. He was always a better overall value than Reyes because of his offense power.  But this doesn't mean we're ready to start Spring Training. Not by a long shot.  When the Winter Meetings start this coming Monday, much could happen to shake things up, particularly if Zack Greinke and Josh Hamilton sign as a result of some GM wheeling and dealing.

But the Mets could also be a big player in the Winter Meetings if they decide to part ways with their Cy Young Award Champion R.A. Dickey.  I just don't know what to think about this guy.  Hoe much value will other teams put on a 38 year old knuckleballer, with a knuckle ball no one has ever thrown, who didn't get good until he was 36 and then became the best pitcher in the National League two years later?

Dickey ANGRY!!!!

In my opinion, sign him for 2 years (after next season) for under $10 million each year.  If he is leading a pitching staff of Jon Neise, Mat Harvey, Dillon Gee and Zack Wheeler by 2014, then by God, we have a shot at this.  Winning a World Series requires pitching, pitching, pitching (and a little bit of offense, just to spice things up).  If Dickey won the Cy Young at 38, there's no reason he can't be a stellar pitcher, or at least really good, in a year or two.  Don't trade him for prospects and uncertainty. Let him  be a part of a winning ball club in the near future.

I just hope the Mets don't screw this up because of a little thing like 'money.'

Expanding Storage on Your Ultrabook

The way I see it, Solid State Drives (SSD) are the future, but we're paying a lot in the present.  Most ultra-thin laptops today are equipped with 128 GB of SSD at the starting price, which is not enough for even causal laptop users over the course of a few years. But upgrading to 256 GB costs $300 on average. That's too much.

However, there are several cheaper alternatives to expanding your storage without expanding your debt. The  'fashionable' option is #3.

1) External Hard Drive: Seagate, Toshiba, Western Digital

• Look on amazon.com and you will find 1 TB external hard drives for $89. That's pretty ridiculous but great for photo/video collector.  There are some drawbacks to consider however.  Firstly, external hard drives are an extra piece of tech to carry around. While their only slightly larger than a cell phone these days, it can still be a pain to download and upload on the go or in a hurry. Luckily, with many externals equipped with USB 3.0 connections, you will spend less time dragging and dropping and more time enjoying your media.  Still, there is something to be said for having everything in one place.  
• Also be weary of durability.  External hard drives suffer from the same problem as any basic hard drive, spinning disks.  Be careful where you place your external when it's plugged in an working. Eventually, the device will break down, but it can break down much quicker because of the moving parts.

2) Flash (Thumb) Drives: Kingston, SanDisk

• Flash drives offer less storage, but are much more portable, can be plugged in on the go, and work on flash memory, so there are no moving parts to worry about.  They are also more expensive in terms of storage capacity.  A 32 GB flash drive goes for $40-50 and a 64 GB flash drive goes for $70-80. Those prices can be cheaper if you don't need a USB 3.0 flash drive, which only work with computers that have USB 3.0 ports.

3) Micro SD card with Nifty Mini Drive

• http://theniftyminidrive.com/
• This is by far the most portable and fashionable option to expanding your laptop's storage, specifically Macbook storage.  Many companies offer adapters for plugging in a Micro SD card into a full SD card slot.  But the Nifty Mini Drive, a Kickstarter program, is an adapter that fits perfectly snug into the SD slot, at least for Macbook Pros and Airs. Any other adapter would stick out from the side about 1 cm. That's not much, but it is SO much sexier to have smooth edges and it allows your Micro SD card to truly be a storage expansion device that never has to be removed from the laptop.  

• The Nifty Mini Drive costs $35 and the actually Micro SD card is sold separately,  but you can get that from anywhere.  Amazon once again comes to the rescue with SanDisk 64 GB Micro SD cards for about $60-70.  That means you can double to storage on your Macbook Air by purchasing 2 64 GB Micro SD cars and the Adapter for almost half the price of upgrading the internal SSD from 128 GB to 256 GB (~$170 versus $300).  
• You can even set the micro SD card to automatically back up files regularly so you know important information is safe, even if the laptop is dropped in the ocean (only for 24 hours)!

One Task the iPad Mini (and any touchscreen) is Not Optimized For...Gaming

Yes, I just had a post highlighting my favorite iPhone games. This is a different argument.

More and more, arguments for purchasing a smartphone or tablet have included some form of the phrase "and this device is ideal for gaming."  This is true, but only to a certain extent.

I have purchased and played some graphic intensive games on my iPad.  The animation is beautiful and the depth of gaming is impressive, but no game from the App Store can compare to a true gaming platforms like Playstation Vita or Nintendo DS.

And it's not just about the details or the number of levels, its about the physical form factor.  Hard core gamers need a joystick and buttons. A touchscreen is only good for simple games or games that are built from the ground up for touchscreens.  There is no denying the success of 'Angry Birds' and 'Temple Run, ' but life long PS3 and XBox gamers sometimes need more.

I own 'Mass Effect Infiltrator,' described as one of the best iPad action/first person shooter games.  It is a lot of fun, but I will never be fully comfortable with the touchscreen joystick and tapping to fire my rifle.  It does not feel natural.  I still really enjoy the game and I believe the Apple App Store has many such high-end games available, but they can only temporarily stave off the urge to sit on the couch and play Halo for 12 hours straight.

Is there an XBox 360 in there?

It is unclear if the Playstation Vita can survive in a climate of simple, inexpensive and addicting touchscreen games...but in my opinion, it should survive. I still really appreciate my Playstation Portable and my Nintendo DS, although both are several generations old now.  They are better for gaming because they are only for gaming.  And no matter what anyone says, touchscreen gaming will not, and should not, overpower the Playstation or XBox. Those 2 platforms are untouchable.