Thoughts on Windows 10, Its Detractors, and Marketing

Windows 95, 2.0. Apparently Windows 10 is nothing more than this, if internet commenters are to be believed. I liked Windows 8.1. That is, I liked it when everything tablet-centric about it is made more desktop-friendly. But with StartIsBack, ModernMix, Glass8, UXStyle, and a good theme, it’s a good OS. Online though, everyone seems to fall into two camps: “Windows 8.x is a total disaster. I’m sticking with Windows 7!” and “Windows 8.x is perfect! MS has a brilliant vision, and anyone who dislikes it is just wrong.” Meanwhile, I fall somewhere in the middle. There are things I like about 8.x: Native disc image mounting is huge for me. The new file operation progress dialogs. The ribbon in Explorer. An app store. Oh, and the new task manager. When it comes down to what I don’t like? The tablet-centric UI paradigms like apps and the Start menu being forced into full screen. So now that we’ve finally been given a choice, I’m happy…

Well almost. I’m still left with two things I just don’t understand. First is the marketing. Within this category, I have two smaller concerns that add up to a total sense of “What is MS drinking?” First, of course, is the more obvious of the two: The Windows 10 name. I have a general sense of “Microsoft can’t count” these days. Actually, I’ve had this sense for quite awhile now.

Windows 6.4. Doesn’t that just scream “10” to you?

The third Xbox? Xbox One. Windows 6.1? Windows 7. Windows 6.2? Windows 8. Windows 6.3? Windows 8.1. Windows 6.4? Windows 10. I am confused. Completely and totally confused. Ever since Windows 7, the actual version number has incremented consistently by 0.1 (how often, exactly, are they going to keep this up?). Meanwhile, the marketing version number has incremented by 1, 0.1, then… 1.9? I have no idea what’s going on here, but I’m quite worried that a company that makes accounting software apparently doesn’t know how to count.

Then we have the other issue: How they’re marketing the Technical Preview.

I think this is the most patronizing thing I’ve ever seen…

So what exactly does this accomplish? I’m taking a technical writing class, and right now, we’re studying how to not sound like condescending asshats. This is a prime example of how not to avoid looking like a condescending asshat. You’re a multi-billion dollar company, Microsoft. The billions you’re paying your marketing team? They came from your customers. The same customers you’re painting as idiots. Please do the right thing and fire these guys. Just like you canned Adam Orth. Do I find this amusing? Yes. But I’m laughing at you, not with you. Do I like it when a company shows personality? Yes. But there are better ways to do that than to make the vast majority of your customer base feel stupid (and kind of make yourself look stupid in the process).


I actually didn’t decide to write this post in order to spew a bunch of anti-MS rage. I decided to write it after reading an ignorant comment on, surprise… The Verge.

I’ll do you one better: its Windows 95 with some Metro apps bolted on. What a shame that a few tech bloggers poisoned the minds of the public and terrified Microsoft into backpedaling hard from Windows 8’s original bold vision.

Here, we have a person who quite clearly understands technology. Totally different, more modern kernel? Yep. Modern security model, completely different file system, multi-processor and 64-bit capable? Yep, yep, and yep. BUT… it provides the option to use a Start menu to open apps instead of a full-screen version that mostly wastes space on a desktop machine? CLEARLY Windows 10 is just Windows 95!

Actually, I think he’s right! It’s like I can’t even tell the difference! /s

All the progress that’s been made in the last 20 years, and the only thing separating Windows 10 from Windows 95 is apparently that I can choose the size of the Start menu in Windows 10. “Bold vision” or Windows 95? The only difference? This little checkbox.

Did I mention there’s actually an option?

It’s not like MS actually removed anything! People are complaining about “backpedaling on a vision,” but all they did was provide an option! But no… apparently people should be forced to conform to some “vision.” The modern fanboy confuses me. Decrying the actions of a company because they listen to their customers instead of stubbornly going forward with something? We went through this with the Xbox One and the always online stuff. People complained about no longer being forced to phone home every 24 hours. A company does something consumer-centric, and then its fanboys hate them for turning back on their “vision.”

So what are my thoughts on Windows 10? Execution, A+. Marketing, F-.  The issue here is a clear split between the engineers and the marketeers. Windows 10 is decidedly a step in the right direction. All I ask is that they change that bland, 9x-ish visual style to something else (mostly the window borders… everything else looks good). Hey, actually everything else reminds me a little bit of Watercolor. Why not bring back those window borders? Do that MS, and I’ll love you forever.

Windows 8 and 8.1 brought about some good changes, with the key flaw being forcing a full-screen Start menu optimized for tablets on desktop users. With Windows 10, we have MS realizing user choice is a good thing, and finally allowing people to do what they should’ve been able to do all along. Meanwhile, we have those who thoroughly confuse me. The Stockholm syndrome ridden fanboys who think users shouldn’t be given an option. To these, I ask: Does a person who ticks a checkbox that makes their Start menu not take up the whole screen really hurt you? Are you that butthurt over someone having a UI preference that’s slightly different than yours?

In summary: I like the product. I hate the marketing (including the name). And as always, I hate the fanboys.

Sent from my Samsung Chromebook 2 – An Apology to Chromebook Fans

So I’ve got a major announcement to make. I am now the proud owner of a Samsung Chromebook 2.

Look at the beautiful fake leather! Doesn’t it just scream “delightfully plastic”?

So yeah. This is me admitting I was wrong. Chromebooks and their ability to do absolutely nothing at all are delightful. Their uselessness totally merits the $400 price tag. You should buy this instead of a vastly more capable Nexus 7 or Windows 8 tablet, both of which are so much cheaper but actually do stuff (the horror!). And we wouldn’t want that, now would we? Now if you’ll excuse me, I’ve got more of exactly what this machine does best to do – absolutely nothing!

Happy April Fool’s Day everyone. 


Tech Products that Should Be Banned

Another blog post inspired by a series of tweets. Last week, I purchased a new monitor. It’s a pretty nice 27″ AOC beast. Obviously, this meant that my old 23″ Samsung would be used as a secondary monitor. The only problem? My graphics card only has one HDMI port, which is consumed by my new monitor. My old monitor has HDMI and VGA inputs. So I did the only thing I could do at the time, and connected the old monitor via VGA. Wow, it looked horrible. So finally, this happened.

So yeah. This post is going to be very trollish. If that bugs you, you may want to stop reading now. =P

Also, I’m going to skip over products that I’ve already ranted about (ChromeOS, Bitcoin, Xbox One, etc…). These are smaller rants that have thus far slipped through the cracks.

Still here? Well then, time to start the list!


The whole reason I wrote this post: No modern product should be built with a VGA interface. So why does the midrange graphics card I purchased maybe eight months ago have one? If only that space were instead used by a second HDMI port, I wouldn’t have been in the mess I was in last weekend. Connecting a modern monitor to a VGA port results in an unspeakably horrible picture, and I’m fairly certain that looking at it for very long would’ve given me headaches. Fortunately, connecting my monitor via a DVI to HDMI adapter solved my problem.


Why do people actually buy these overpriced headphones? Not that I’ve ever been in the mood to spend $400 on headphones (I think the most I’ve ever spent on a wired set is $50, for the Sony pair I’m using now), but if I ever were, I’d probably buy something else.

Browser toolbars

So I do some work for these people once in awhile. It’s a guy in his 60’s or so. I was tasked with speeding up his web browser. The problem? About five different toolbars. Uninstalled them, and it ran much better. A couple of days back, I was at my best friend’s house. He’s about my age, and also a CS major. You think he’d have the common sense to not install this garbage, right? Nope. Two or three of them. He said they were bundled with some other stuff he had installed. Sigh…


It’s so annoying when I have to print out a report or coupon or some other thing, and then I find out I’m out of ink. Fortunately, I’m not my household’s designated ink-purchaser, but this stuff makes the aforementioned Beats look reasonably-priced. And fortunately these days I can show most coupons on my phone, and submit most of my assignments online, but for those few holdouts where I can’t, get with the times. In this modern age, where nobody’s ever more than a few feet from a computer screen, why waste paper, ink, and time making physical copies of things? It’s a relic of a bygone era, that people really just need to let go of. And furthermore, once I move out and get my own place, I’d really like to get by without owning a printer at all. So please, I beg of everyone, let’s make this happen within the next year.

Dating Sites

Maybe this is more so a fault of the town that I live in (which, if you couldn’t tell from the end of the last section, I’m more than ready to move out of), but these are full of people not worth meeting. Profiles are either of people who have no concept of spelling or grammar, or who copy/paste the set of interests “hunting, fishing, and mudding.” I’m not entirely sure I want to know what “mudding” is, but for now I’m going to assume it means rolling around in mud like a pig, which doesn’t even sound remotely fun. I’ve always figured if I were ever to find a fellow geek with whom to share my life, it’d be on the internet. I suppose not.

Almost anything by Samsung

Samsung seems to have a knack for choosing the worst possible materials from which to build a product, then brainwashing the public into overpaying for it. Take the Galaxy S4 for example (which somehow manages to be the least egregious design travesty out of Samsung). It retails for $624. And what do you get for that price? A less-powerful Nexus 5, with an awful plastic case, and a bunch of bloatware, for almost twice the price of the N5. And the upcoming S5? It’s the name “5S” reversed, with a clone of the 5S’s headlining feature (TouchID) slapped onto the S4. Then there’s the Galaxy Note. It’s basically the same thing, but pointlessly huge. Oh, and then they throw some craptastic fake leather thing on it. And finally, you have this monstrosity.

Why would anyone think this level of skeuomorphism is appropriate? Did Scott Forstall go to work for Samsung after leaving Apple?

How I’d guess this thing was “designed.” It’s “bring your kid to work” day at Samsung. Someone’s three-year-old sticks an employee’s laptop in a leather notebook. “Eureka!” No, really. I can’t think of a better explanation of how this was ever conceived. It’s beyond what I’d be able to come up with as an intentionally bad design. It’s even worse than the previous Samsung Chromebook, which, from a distance, looks like a MacBook Air. Then once you get closer, you realize, “WAIT, THIS IS AWFUL CHEAP SAMSUNG PLASTIC!”

“Gaming” PC’s and peripherals

For what it’s worth, appending the word “gaming” to something doesn’t mean it’s a better product (I guess it’s kind of like how adding the word “premium” to “margarita” doesn’t make a better margarita; it just makes a more expensive one). It just means it’s sold for a severely marked-up price and has some awful gaudy design to it. The base Alienware desktop? It’s $700. And it has a dual-core i3. For $100 less, you could get a Mac Mini that at least has a dual-core i5. It has 2GB less RAM, although if you add $100 to the price (matching the Alienware), you can upgrade it to 8GB, making a machine that’s the same price, with more RAM and a better CPU. Oh, and also consider that Alienware is owned by Dell, a company that hardly has a reputation for build quality. So much for that Apple tax, huh?

Then you’ve got peripherals. We were shopping for a new keyboard for my brother (he eventually wound up buying some HP crap that he now desperately wants to replace). My sister then informs me that I should buy some $100 crappy gaming keyboard. I paid ~$110 for my keyboard and mouse, and I have no idea what functionality that keyboard has that makes it worth $30 more than I paid for mine. Aside from some stupid gaudy design that plastered tacky green markings all over the keyboard for no apparent reason. Oh, and my sister also paid something like $100 for a Turtle Beach gaming headset. I bet a $30 Logitech unit would’ve sufficed just as well. Not to mention, it’s not like “gamers” need exceptional audio quality anyway. I don’t think you need audiophile-class equipment to listen to this. I guess “gaming” equipment is to “e-sports” what Jordans are to jock sports? (in case I haven’t made it clear, I’m not a fan of “e-sports” or jock sports)

Whatever this thing is

Speaking of audiophiles, the next piece of tech that really, really shouldn’t exist is this Pono thing. Someone made a placebo MP3 player that sells for $400, and only sounds better than “normal” music players because it’s paired with an online store that sells overpriced FLAC’s or something. Furthermore, what is with that shape? Is that supposed to fit comfortably in my pocket? =/

Slap some FLAC’s onto a Nexus 5, and you get a device that’s $50 cheaper, sounds just as good, fits in your pocket correctly, and doubles as a fully-featured smartphone!

Flappy Bird knockoffs

Random observation: Windows Phone is the worst when it comes to knockoff apps and games. I’m fairly certain this was the top game in the store for awhile.


A new version of bad grammar called: Flappy Bird 2 with incoherent, more hard to read, and more horrible.

Furthermore, people believe this is legit? Also, there’s so many of these. Just… why? The only Flappy Bird inspired game besides the original that’s worth playing is this one.


Okay, let me preface this one by making it clear that I don’t think tablets in general should be banned. I do, however, think Windows RT should be banned. It offers nothing over a comparable tablet running Windows 8 on an Atom. These days, Atom tablets are about the same price as, if not cheaper than, WinRT tablets. Bonus: Win8 on x86/x64 has an actual app ecosystem to speak of.

Also, this.

Furthermore, rear-facing cameras on tablets really need to go. It’s not an appropriate form factor to be used as a camera, at all. Why encourage this? All it accomplishes is the annoyance of the poor, unfortunate souls who are stuck standing behind the person doing this at an event.


Quite a few of these products are oriented toward audiophiles, gamers, and in the case of overpriced gaming headphones, the uncanny intersection of the two. Maybe we should just ban audiophiles and gamers? I also considered adding netbooks to the list, but then I realized, if netbooks didn’t exist, that’s justify the existence of ChromeOS. The lesser of two evils, I suppose. Others, like tablets, were only added under heavily limited conditions, but upon the suggestion of someone else. Suggest some more products, and if I like it (as in, I hate the product), I might make a sequel to this post someday.

ChromeOS: iPhone OS 1.0, 2.0.

It’s been almost three months since I’ve blogged last. I’m really sorry about that. Shortly after writing my last blog post, the Eleven project began, and I’ve been focused on that lately. That, and I just haven’t found the inspiration to blog in quite awhile. Until now.

Sometimes, you find a product that makes you think, “How does this even exist? The idea behind it is so dumb!” The new Asus Chromebox (and Chromeboxes, and ChromeOS products in general, but especially Chromeboxes) is the poster child of such products. Chromebooks made zero sense. Chromeboxes make even less sense (negative one sense?). As implied by the title, this post is intended as a critique of ChromeOS in general, but I’d first like to address Chromeboxes, as they seem to be a special kind of pointless.

WTF is a Chromebox?

A Chromebox is a desktop running ChromeOS. ChromeOS’s supposed “advantage” is battery life, so I don’t quite get the point of running it on a desktop (or anything else for that matter, because it’s useless, but that’s a matter for another part of this post…).

Why would anyone want that?

Because apparently Google’s marketing machine is good at convincing people to buy things that are totally useless. The point of a desktop is to do the things you can’t do with a laptop. ChromeOS only does web browsing. And last I checked, any decent laptop can do that just fine. Buying a desktop just for web browsing would be like buying a semi truck to haul your canoe. What’s more, apparently they’re making a version of this thing with an i7. I kid you not. I’m not really sure what kind of web sites you’re visiting that demand an i7 to use them, but that sounds like more of a problem with web developers than with computer hardware…

I should make clear at this point that I’m not trying to suggest Chromebooks are a sensible product with my “desktops are supposed to be more capable than laptops” line. I, like any sensible customer, expect my laptop to do a fair bit as well. It can’t run intense games or multiple VM’s, but my laptop (a 13″ rMBP with an i5 and 8GB RAM) is capable of most other tasks I’d ever need a computer for, including a fair bit of dev work. As an extension of my philosophy, a laptop should be able to do more than a phone or tablet. And my phone and tablet (Nexus 5 and 7, respectively) can run apps. Something a Chromebook can only dream of (unless of course you erase it and put a real Linux distro on it, although Chrome “OS” is supposed to be its primary selling point).

That title still makes no sense.

I indeed meant for this post to slam ChromeOS in general. But I needed to rant specifically about Chromeboxes first, just because. So, about that title…

Remember iPhone OS 1.0?

It had no apps. Aside from crappy web apps, which as far as I know, nobody ever used. And the iPhone is renowned primarily for its app ecosystem (note: I’m an Android user, and even I acknowledge this).

Art called Steve “half a dozen times to lobby for the potential of the apps,” according to the book, but Steve was against them

If it were up to Steve Jobs, the iPhone would not have native apps, arguably its defining characteristic. This was the origin of iOS jailbreaking – people were fed up with the limited capabilities of (surprise!) web apps.

The demand for native apps on iOS was so high that the hand of the infamously stubborn Steve Jobs was forced into giving in. Seriously, remember how he brushed off the fairly serious Antennagate as “You’re holding it wrong”? In the mind of Jobs, the demand for apps must’ve many times more serious, in order to actually cause him to relent. And because of this, iOS, a platform that originally shipped without native app support, became renowned for its native app ecosystem. In short, ditching web apps was the best thing that ever happened to iOS.

Go home Google, you’re drunk

Google should take note. If native apps are so essential on a phone, they’re that much more essential on a laptop, and definitely more so on a desktop. You’re not doing anyone any favors by dumbing down the computing experience to that extent. Once again, look at Apple. They’ve managed to create a system that’s “idiot-proof” without limiting their OS to the role of a glorified web browser. That, and Google’s strategy seems a little… incoherent? Their mobile OS isn’t dumbed down at all. But their desktop OS is? Am I missing something here? Or maybe not. Google is somewhat infamous for throwing ideas at the wall then seeing what sticks (Chromeboxes certainly haven’t stuck, as I don’t know anybody who owns one, and neither have Chromebooks, as I’ve only ever seen one in the wild).

ChromeOS is almost an insight into the road not taken by Apple – what if Steve Jobs didn’t back down, and iOS remained nothing but a haven for poorly-crafted web apps? It would be jeered at and mocked by tech culture, and everyone else would be blissfully unaware of the fact that it even exists. I’m no fan of Microsoft, but… they’re right:

I’ve come to the conclusion that ChromeOS isn’t meant to be taken as a serious product. It’s just another Google experiment – a public beta test. Google themselves don’t use it (I believe they use Macs internally). They know it isn’t a usable product. If Google really wants to make a desktop OS, they should use Android as a base. Or Ubuntu or some other Linux distro. Add the Play Store, and allow Android apps to run in windowed mode (also, please do this on tablets as well while you’re at it). People do actually expect to do things with their computers. And there’s nothing a Chromebox, or a Chromebook for that matter, can do that a desktop or laptop running OS X, Windows, or Linux can’t do. Meanwhile, these systems can do so much more. Even OpenOffice (or LibreOffice, or whatever they’re calling it these days) trumps Google Docs by a longshot. Oh, and it works without an internet connection.

What says it all? I was at Best Buy a few months ago, and I wanted to try out a Chromebook, just so I could bash it fairly. An employee found it necessary to inform me that it’s just a web browser. “I know.” Apparently they get a lot of complaints from people who buy them and then return them or something. I can just picture the typical consumer:

Consumer: I can’t install any programs on my laptop.

Employee: It’s a Chromebook.

Consumer: So? It’s got Chrome on it? It’s a laptop. Surely it does something useful as well.

Employee: Nope.

Consumer: Oh? Why would Google make something so useless? I’m not buying Google or Chrome anything anymore.

It’s like Windows RT all over again (remember all the stories/discussion about users who don’t understand how it doesn’t run any of their Windows apps?). It’s supposedly intended to target your average “idiot” consumer. But your average “idiot” consumer can’t understand what it is and isn’t capable of, expects it to be just like any other laptop, buys it, and gets confused (then probably returns it).

TL;DR ChromeOS is tarnishing Google’s reputation, and there are two groups of people: its target market, whom it will confuse the ever-living crap out of, as they (understandably – people should expect their desktop OS to be more capable than iPhone OS 1.0) aren’t capable of understanding its limitations; and geeks, who know that it’s useless.

Review: Nexus 5

On October 31, Google announced the long-rumored successor to the Nexus 4. The Nexus 5, once again manufactured by LG, features a 4.95in 1080p display at 446ppi (as compared to the Nexus 4’s 4.7in display at 318ppi), along with a Snapdragon 800 processor. It’s also available in a new 32GB variant. Disappointingly, it retains the same 2GB of RAM as its predecessor. It’s not that 2GB wasn’t enough for the N4 – it was. But I’ve noticed some background apps closing in situations where they wouldn’t on a Nexus 4. I don’t know if this is a KitKat issue, or if it’s because driving the larger screen just needs more memory. Regardless, it’s time for me to answer the question probably on everyone’s mind, in my first-ever hardware review (thus far I’ve only done software): Is the Nexus 5 a worthy successor to the venerable Nexus 4?


My Nexus 5 beside its box

Value proposition of the century

The value Google offers by means of the Nexus program is truly admirable. The 16GB model starts at $350 unlocked. I paid $450 for it at Best Buy because I was tired of waiting for my Play Store order, but even then, the Best Buy reps were astounded that a phone specced as such was made available at that price. It’s also worthy of mention that the Best Buy reps claimed that the Nexus 5 only works on Sprint. It came with a Sprint SIM card, but worked just fine with my T-Mobile SIM. I had to go back to the store the next day to help my brother shop for something, and the rep that sold me the phone recognized me, at which point I pointed out that the phone indeed works with T-Mobile. You’re welcome. This isn’t the first time I’ve upstaged a Best Buy employee either, yet I somehow can’t get a job there despite having tried multiple times. I suppose I’m getting a little off-topic…

Regardless, this isn’t the first time someone’s tried offering a value phone. The Nokia Lumia 520/521 should also come to mind. It’s a bit of a different concept though. The Lumia 52x isn’t intended to compete at the high end. Due to the fact that the Windows Phone OS runs well on low-end hardware, it runs well enough, but some things (like the screen) are still lackluster. That said, $100 for a modern smartphone is a good value for what it is. Kick the concept up a notch and add Android to take advantage of top-of-the-line hardware, and you have the Nexus 5. It’s priced like a budget phone, but make no mistake: it competes at the very top. For instance, if compared spec-for-spec to “the” Android phone to beat, the Galaxy S4, the Nexus 5 is in most ways equal or superior to the much more expensive (and overrated) Samsung device.

For instance, the N5 has a Snapdragon 800 clocked at 2.29GHz, while the S4 has a Snapdragon 600 clocked at 1.9GHz. Both have 2GB RAM and screens that are (for all practical purposes) five inches at roughly the same pixel density. And I have a strong preference for the design of the Nexus 5 over that of the S4. More on that later.


Google made big promises with Android 4.4 KitKat, and chose the Nexus 5 as the device to show that off. Was that a good choice? Powered by a quad-core Snapdragon 800, the Nexus 5 indeed manages to run everything noticeably faster than the Nexus 4 did. And the N4 itself wasn’t slow by any means. I tried Asphalt 8 on it, which played flawlessly (that said, it also played on my brother’s fourth-gen iPod Touch… which didn’t well support what he led me to believe about it being the Crysis of mobile gaming). In an example that distinguishes the N5 from the N4, it also doesn’t lag at the point of the five-second alert in Dots. It did this on the N4.

Needless to say, in most cases, I’m impressed with the performance of the Nexus 5, with one gripe. It comes with the same 2GB of RAM featured in the Nexus 4. I don’t actually know if this is a fault of not having enough RAM, or if it’s a KitKat/Chrome bug, but frequently when listening to Grooveshark songs in Chrome and doing other things, the music will stop and the page will reload when I flip back to it. I’ve never had this problem previously, so it may well be a KitKat bug. That said, I can’t particularly fault Google/LG for this, since 2GB is competitive with other flagship Android devices like the Galaxy S4 and the HTC One. Plus, it’s got the benefit of not having to run bloatware UI layers on top of the OS.

As a side note, some other reviewers have claimed it has scrolling issues in apps like Chrome. The Nexus 4 did. But so far, I’ve experienced no such thing on the Nexus 5 (which is quite refreshing).



Nexus 5 displaying Chrome. My apologies for any less-than-stellar pictures. Any pictures of the phone itself I took with my Lumia 521.

The Nexus 5’s improved screen is basically the reason why I bought it. I already had LTE unofficially, and the Nexus 4 was “fast enough.” It’s not much bigger than the screen on the Nexus 4, but the slightly-increased real estate (without increasing actual phone size – phones are the perfect size already, but if you can figure out how to make the screen bigger, great) is still much appreciated. The pixel density of the Nexus 5 is a staggering 446ppi, bested only by the HTC One. It’s great for reading, and even better for videos and gaming. I’ve never been terribly impressed with watching video on a phone screen. Until now. The slightly larger size and much higher pixel density improve things quite a bit.


Nexus 5, back view

A lot of reviews that I’ve read have harped on the Nexus 5 for its design, which they claim is somehow lacking. I don’t know why. I like it. Both from an aesthetic perspective, and from a practical one. It feels amazing in hand, and looks like the smaller cousin of the Nexus 7, an incredibly sleek and professional-looking device.


Nexus 7 (2013) next to Nexus 5

And yes, it’s a plastic device. But it’s, dare I say it, classy plastic. In most cases, I’m vehemently against plastic devices. Anything Samsung churns out both looks and feels horrible (seriously, as compared to the Galaxy S4, the Nexus 5 is a paragon of design). Even the iPhone 5C kind of looks like a toy. But the Nexus 5 feels like a thing of substance, despite being thinner and lighter than its predecessor. It feels densely packed, like a device that uses wisely every bit of space given to it.

And as a bonus, I don’t have to try so hard to only put it on soft surfaces like I had to with my Nexus 4. I like to keep my devices in pristine condition, so I would only place my N4 on cloth or paper, or in my pocket. I can set down my N5 anywhere and not worry about it.


Truth be told, I’m a perfectionist about image quality. So I’ve never owned a phone with a camera I’m actually happy with. But I’m a perfectionist about other things as well, meaning the only phones with cameras I’d be happy with (high-end Lumias, basically) would require sacrifices I’m unwilling to make, namely being saddled with the hardware and software limitations of the still-immature Windows Phone platform (that said, it has many of the same limitations as the already-mature iOS platform, so it may never grow out of them). So I basically put up with cameras that aren’t particularly wonderful in order to have an otherwise-perfect phone. That said, at least the camera is better than that of the Nexus 4.

Click on the samples for a full-size view.


A picture of part of my desk. Yes, I need to clean that up. =/



A picture of the same area, but in (even) less light than usual.


An image of my car. Yes, I need to wash that.


Another image taken outside, this time with better light.


One more, taken outside.

Needless to say, I have no pretense of being a professional photographer. But these photos should do a decent job of demonstrating the Nexus 5’s camera in a range of settings. The photos are passable, but far short of crystal clear. Maybe someday there will exist a Nexus device with a good camera. Today is not that day. The results are far from bad, but not particularly great either.


The Nexus 5 also (officially) features a LTE radio. This is nothing new to me, as one could always enable it unofficially on the Nexus 4. But it’s nice to not have to do so every time I reboot the device. I’ve been speed testing the LTE in various places around town, and I’ve never managed to get the 20+Mbps result I got with my N4 once, but I probably got lucky that time. While on the topic of cellular radios, as I suggested earlier, the Nexus 5 is compatible with CDMA networks. Or to be specific, it’s compatible with Sprint. So if you’re a customer of the largest carrier in the United States (Verizon), you’re out of luck thanks to Verizon, Google, and their childish bickering.

I also applaud Google for offering a 32GB variant of the device this time around. I have the 16GB model due to presently being on a slightly-restricted budget, but it’s good to know that Google isn’t trying to shoehorn everyone into their asinine “cloud” vision after all. I really do wish they’d allow an SD card slot though. I’ve got a 32GB one sitting around that I don’t get much use out of.


The Nexus 5 is an upgrade to the Nexus 4 in almost all regards. It’s faster, has a gorgeous screen, (finally) has (official) LTE, and has a design that is (at least in my opinion – I’ve learned that the best way to find out what hell on earth is like is to try to convince people that design sensibilities are objective) substantially better than that of the Nexus 4, which wasn’t particularly ugly to begin with. The camera is improved but could still use more improvement, and that’s my only real complaint about the device, and forgivable because it’s only $350. The Nexus 5 isn’t quite the perfect phone, but it’s close. Dare I say it, it’s the best you can get right now. And it’s far better than one could reasonably expect for that price tag. Did I mention that it runs stock Android and comes fully carrier- and bootloader-unlocked?

Final score