Home > Investment, Life, Plans, Technology > Newer is not always better

Newer is not always better

So, this week or two has been a good lesson that newer is not always better. I’ve actually known newer is not always better when it comes to software, but it happened once again. A couple months ago, when adobe flash player was updated to version 10.2, I jumped right on because I heard it has hardware acceleration enabled for macs (reduces CPU consumption). I know this is getting a bit technical so let me just inform you that when I watched Youtube videos afterwards, my full screen became extremely sluggish to the point it was unwatchable.

Problem being, I didn’t notice right away, so I didn’t figure out it was Flash 10.2 that did this for a long long time. Well, just a couple days ago, I decided I’ll track this down and finally figure out how to fix it, so I scoured the net using Google, which didn’t help much. Instead I decided to try to figure out exactly what was causing the slowdown in full screen mode. Long story short, I ended up looking for an older version of Flash to install and see if that would fix the problem…and it did!

On a similar note, I had recently ‘upgraded’ to Google Chrome 10 by force. It was actually really sneaky, I got no notification and before I knew it, I had the latest version of Chrome. I immediately began noticing small but annoying bugs, such as having to press enter several times after typing in a web page address such as www.youtube.com. This time, I noticed right away and immediately blamed Chrome 10, so I set out to try to figure out how to install an older version of Chrome, which was harder than I imagined it would be. Eventually I found a 99% similar browser called Chromium, and I installed version 8 as well as version 9 and tried both with several different versions of Flash. Finally, I settled on Flash 10.0 combined with Chrome 8 to feel the ‘snappiest’. Now, my web browsing experience feels a whole lot better! If I could, I’d remove Flash completely, but I cannot live without Youtube in my life (and the HTML5 option is not ready for primetime…trust me).

For that matter, I recently decided I would sell my iPad 2, as I found I don’t need anything newer than an iPad 1. The iPad 2 was to me, 99% identical to iPad 1 but nearly twice as expensive. I’ve since put my iPad 2 up for sale, although I don’t know if I’ll be replacing it with another iPad 1.

Finally, I was reading about this fragrance (cologne) that is a limited edition (seen above). For those curious, its called Windsor and it was released in a limited quantity in 2009 (right 4 bottles are 2009 edition). Apparently, it got rave reviews from the very few people who were able to try it. So much in fact, that it was re-released in 2010 (left 2 bottles are 2010 edition), but when people started sniffing and comparing the 2 different releases of the supposedly same product, almost everyone was able to tell the first one smelled a little different (and it is generally considered better). The maker of the cologne (Creed) apparently admitted that the cologne was reformulated! WTF they are selling a reformulated product and claiming it is the SAME product if that is true (and one thing for sure is the color is different as you can see, suggesting this is true). Seemingly off topic, I know, but just another example of an older version of something being better.

In other news, I have been fairly successful with investments lately, which is always good. One thing that kinda sucks though, is that in 2010 I bought a big batch of limited edition colognes as an investment. I found them at a good price and I knew they would soon be sold out and not reproduced, plus the cologne had rave reviews so no doubt the value would increase, right!? Well, same thing happened to this cologne (Thierry Mugler’s Pure Malt, pictured above in the re-release ad), they decided it was so popular that they had to re-release it to make more money. I sorta understand the need to make more money, but this is a fine line that could be considered lying by saying it will be a limited edition. Ask any Lamborghini owner if they would be pleased if Lamborghini decided to make a limited 20 car run into a 2000 car run and suddenly their expensive car was not only 100 times less exclusive, but also lost resale value? Well, if you bought the original Windsor cologne mentioned earlier in this post, at least the newer re-release doesn’t hurt your resale value too much as it is not the exact same product, but in my case, it seems as though the ‘Pure Malt’ product re-release is EXACTLY THE SAME, thus hurting the value of my investment. It can be kinda annoying sometimes.

The good news is, if I sold my batch of Pure Malts now, I’d still make some money, just not as much as before the re-release announcement. And for the record, it actually is quite a nice and very unique cologne.

I’ll try to write a less technical blog soon.

Categories: Investment, Life, Plans, Technology Tags:
  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.