The Great UnGoogling: First Steps

Google pays Apple around 18 Billion every year for their search engine to be the default in the Safari browser. For perspective, that’s roughly NASA’s annual budget. Bear in mind, this isn’t some exclusivity deal. You can change the default search engine in Safari with just a little spelunking into the menu system. Like most things with Apple, the solution is simple, just not obvious.

If you’re on an iPhone:
Go to Settings. 

Scroll down to Apps.
Find Safari.
You’ll see an option for Search Engine.
Tapping on it reveals a list of options with Google at the top.
Take your pick.
You’re all clear, Kid. Now let’s blow this thing and go home.

The desktop environment has fewer steps, but works much the same way; it’s neatly tucked away in settings, far from hidden, but not calling attention to itself. Like I said, simple, not obvious. As for that list of options, it may seem like slim pickings, and it kind of is. Once upon a time, it was kind of the Wild West. There was Yahoo! and Google, of course, but there was also the likes of Excite and Lycos. Those two are still technically around, but they’re very much shadows of their former selves and not selectable on Safari’s shortlist. In fact, the only search engine I know of that came on the scene with a lot of hype and died almost as quickly was Cuil (pronounced “cool”), lasting only from 2008 to 2010. As to how we came to have one big slice with many rail-thin slices that would blow away in a gentle breeze if you tried to serve them on a plate, that’s a discussion people have earned degrees investigating. So, let’s just call it (Un)Natural Selection Meets The Law of Averages and carry on.

Touching back on those thin slices, they all stand a very good chance of becoming bigger pieces of the pie with the recent backlash Google has gotten for failing to uphold their founding mantra of “don’t be evil”. There’s been too many issues to cover in great detail here, from exploiting behavioral economics to legal troubles to policy changes contrary to earlier promises. Speaking only for myself, I’ve been making moves since the start of the year to slowly but surely de-Google my life, a kind of unintentional New Year’s Resolution. I don’t plan on quitting Google entirely, mostly because of my blog here as well as my YouTube channel, Gmail, and maybe Google Drive (which I'm considering moving to an external drive). My first real step in this direction was eliminating instances wherein I use my Google account to log in to a service. That took a very long time, but was ultimately painless and now I log in to those services through other means.

My next step was choosing a new default search engine, which brings us to that list of options. Yahoo! was an outright no from me. I closed my email account there some time ago and the only real attachment I have to them is Flickr, which I almost never use, at best serving as a plan B if I decide to give up on Instagram. Bing is okay; it’s by Microsoft, a company I have very mixed feelings about, but overall it’s a perfectly competent search engine. I don’t know a lot about Ecosia, except that it’s some kind of nonprofit that plants trees. I simply don’t see a gimmick like that being sustainable, which makes me sad as it’s a very noble cause.

In the end, I chose DuckDuckGo, and I’ve been using it for a few weeks now. It is partly built on Bing and primarily emphasizes privacy. What this means is that when you search something, DuckDuckGo doesn’t keep track of where you’ve been and what you’ve searched for, and does not use this data to target ads to you or otherwise tailor your search results to consider your browsing habits. I’ve never used Google without logging in to my Google account, so I don’t know what the search experience is like for everyone else. The consensus of late is that the search results feel fundamentally broken as they push AI features that are hit or miss at best as well as giving special favor to companies that buy advertising space on the platform rather than emphasizing relevance. Few things in this world irk me more than someone saying, “Just Google it!” as it exposes their ignorance to just how Google works. Put simply, my search results are not going to look like yours because of our different browsing habits. Google tracks what you look for and tries to find results that fit, often creating a kind of echo chamber.

One of the criticisms of DuckDuckGo and to a similar extent Bing is that the search results aren’t as “good” as Google. What is meant by this is that the results are less tailored and require a little more heavy lifting on your part. This isn’t the best example, but you’ll get the idea: when I put “flip a coin” into Google, it loads an applet that flips a virtual coin. When I put “flip a coin” into DuckDuckGo, I don’t get an applet. Instead, I get a list of websites that offer random number generators with coin-flipping options, along with articles detailing the history of the coin flip as well as the mathematical probabilities of using different currencies in the flipping. In other words, it’s not flipping the coin for me, it’s directing me to where I can get help with flipping a coin as I don’t have one on me and need to decide where I’m going to go for lunch. DuckDuckGo isn’t trying to be the answer. It knows it’s a directory. Google is trying to be the answer, at least for simple things like flipping coins or telling me the current temperature in Madagascar or the results of an election. At least, they started with simple things. Now, they’re trying to get AI to deliver more concise answers to more complex questions. I once asked Google which finger types the 6 on a keyboard. The first result was an AI summary that insisted it was the ring finger on the right hand. Needless to say, this is very wrong*. I tried again with different wording, thinking maybe I confused it. The result was the same. Sometime later, when I asked the same question, it did away with the AI summary and gave me a list of websites about learning to type.

To be fair, DuckDuckGo does have some AI features and will occasionally feature a summary at the top, but this is actually a pretty rare occurrence, even when I ask a direct question rather than inputting a string of keywords. Sometimes, the AI summary will only show a blank bar with an option for me to generate the summary. Other times, it’s placed far down the list, sometime after the 5th or 6th result. The point is that DuckDuckGo isn’t trying to force it on me, and I appreciate that. It’s still interested in the technology and wants it to be better, but it knows to make it more or less “opt-in” compared to Google. 

DuckDuckGo also offers itself as a full-fledged web browser. I have it on my phone, but I don't really use it for anything. It doesn't even have a Reader View like Safari, so it's not very practical right now and I don't expect new features to roll out any time soon. It's a small company with few employees that operates under a very utilitarian and minimalist philosophy. Much as I think a Reader View would be a given for a utilitarian and minimalist philosophy, I can still respect their barebones approach to what the browser offers. They also offer this subscription service that includes a VPN, identity theft protection, and a personal data removal service**. It’s about 100 a year, and while I don’t have any real need at the moment for what’s on offer, I am considering it as a way to support the cause. I like what DuckDuckGo is doing and I hope they become a substantially bigger slice of the pie. 

I’ll have further entries on my UnGoogling progress, but I wanted to start it off light and simple, something that most people can do without having to make any serious commitments or disrupt any routines.

* On reflection, I think the problem was that Google was assuming I wanted to use the number pad to the right of the keyboard rather than the number row along the top. After all, if you rest your right hand on the number pad, your middle finger falls on the five, putting the 6 right under your ring finger.

** Basically, they put in requests to data brokers to remove your personal information from their records, kind of like a digital "do not call list". I'd previously tried a service called Incogni to see if it would cut down on the damned robocalls. The results have been mixed, but given the majority of these robocalls are from scam artists, I don't expect them to play nice and uphold their part of the Geneva Convention. Needless to say, if I ever find any of these scum piles in the wild or locate their call centers, I will not abide by the Convention, either. 

The First Byte Is With The i

People have probably earned Master’s degrees analyzing Apple’s classic rainbow logo. The apple represents knowledge and the rainbow represents order—oh, but there’s a catch; there’s a bite taken out of the apple and the colors are all out of order, representing disruption, a rebellious upset of the status quo. It’s hard to imagine now for most people, but once upon a time Apple was the scrappy underdog upstart that relied on its fans for its marketing as much as anything by a professional advertising agency.

Supposedly, the colored bands across the apple presented a challenge as far as making the badges, especially considering every machine was going to have one somewhere on its casing. It was costly and tedious, but the company knew what it wanted. The rainbow would eventually fade in favor of a single color depending on which of their iMacs and/or iBooks you purchased. Following that, they stuck with a flat monochrome, though the rainbow does technically live on in their new range of iMacs echoing their classic predecessors from the late 1990’s and early 2000’s.

What’s unique about Apple’s branding is that tech companies, as a rule, shy away from anything flashy or colorful.

Keep It Simple, Stupid.

Microsoft’s Windows has had a similar trajectory in terms of branding, trading its colorful, curvy squares and swish for a flat and sober arrangement of squares. Of course, outside of Microsoft’s Surface lineup, you don’t really see their logo on the machines that carry their operating system, except maybe for a small foil sticker somewhere on the casing, typically next to the one for the processor and the one for the graphics card. 

Then there’s ViewSonic, which doesn’t know what it wants in terms of branding.

I’ve used ViewSonic monitors for years and they’ve never let me down. They’re reasonably priced, they have a wide selection, and they offer a high quality image. That said, they frustrate and disappoint me in a way only the decisions of a large tech company can.

Before I made the leap from a large Android phone from Sony to an iPad for my drawing, I poked around the Android market to see what would meet my needs. Unfortunately for me, most of the Android tablet offerings didn’t really have creative productivity in mind. Their target audience was people who just wanted to read a book, browse the web, or watch a streaming service. Even the few that tried to appeal to the artist crowd usually came up short and asked a pretty high price, so high that you might as well have saved yourself some money and just gotten a damn iPad, which I did.

Android tablets are slim pickings these days, dominated by only half a handful of companies, namely Amazon and Samsung. To the latter’s credit, they’ve made a pretty good go of giving the iPad a run for its money with creative professionals. Before that, though, it seemed all the major players wanted a piece of the Apple-dominated pie. I even remember Toshiba offering a line of fairly reasonably priced tablets. They had terrible displays, but that was really where a lot of these companies cut the most corners. So, when I saw that ViewSonic was making Android tablets, I was elated. 

ViewSonic has a logo that stands out among the other tech companies, even giving Apple some stiff competition, albeit it’s a little anemic on the academic analysis front. It’s three Gouldian finches huddled together in a neat little row, their feathers a vibrant mix of yellows, blues, purples, and a touch of red around the eyes of the outer two. It is really less of a logo and more of a promotional illustration, not unlike Apple’s original woodblock logo of Sir Isaac Newton sitting under a tree (before they “got to the point” and went with the apple itself).

I thought, “Can you imagine how cool that would be to be rocking a tablet with those three birds where anyone else would expect to see an Apple logo!?” Between that and ViewSonic offering quality monitors, it seemed like a no-brainer. Then, I browsed the selection and saw no trace whatsoever of the finches. Not even the bezel on the front had them like they do for some of their monitors. All they had was the ViewSonic name embossed on the back. I was furious, that special kind of furious you reserve for the most first world of first world problems, the one that has you toppling a chair as you storm out of the room before marching back in to continue hurling abuse at the screen.

“AND ANOTHER THING…!”

Seriously… you idiots! You had a Gouldian opportunity to show up Apple and make a name for yourself in the tablet space, and you blew it. It didn’t help they also weren’t offering any better resolution or image quality than their competition, indicating they simply put their name on something so they could say, “Yeah, we tried the tablet thing, but it didn’t work out. Let’s go back to making monitors.” The lineup did not last and the Android tablet market would implode practically overnight following that saturation of everything except colored logos.

I bring this all up because I was considering upgrading my monitor to an ultra wide (the 21:9 ratio instead of the typical 16:9). I found a model that seemed to tick all the boxes except having the finches on them. That’s not really a dealbreaker for me, just disappointing. When I looked at the monitor’s specifications, something caught my attention. It’s not uncommon for monitors to have built-in USB hubs to help with cable management. It’s actually pretty smart. You’ve typically got your PC tower on the floor under your desk, so rather than get extension cables for all of your peripherals, you plug one long cable from the PC to the monitor, and then plug all of your peripherals into the monitor.

However, this particular model had only one USB port, but proudly proclaimed: 

“Connect your compatible computer through the dual HDMI 2.0 and one DisplayPort inputs. A USB-A 2.0 port allows you to connect peripherals such as a wireless keyboard and mouse adapter through the monitor.”

I was very puzzled by this. How can you plug a mouse and keyboard into the monitor and then somehow get them to connect to your computer? Is there some obscure feature to the HDMI or DisplayPort connection that I don’t know about? I mean, both HDMI and DisplayPort carry audio information, maybe there’s another channel in the mix for other purposes. I decided to get some clarification and try my luck with the Q&A section of the B&H listing where I was originally browsing. A staff member got back to me within about 24ish hours and clarified that the USB port on the monitor is to plug in a USB thumb drive for the sole purpose of upgrading the monitor’s firmware.

As of this writing, the B&H page for the monitor is unchanged, still claiming that the USB port on the monitor is for computer peripherals. I don’t blame B&H for that; they’re getting their sales blurb directly from ViewSonic. So, I went to the source and found this: 

“Two HDMI (v2.0) inputs, one DisplayPort (v1.4) input, and one USB-A (v2.0) input offer flexible connectivity so you can directly connect your keyboard, mouse and other peripherals.

Change the way you work and play with the VX3418-2K monitor today.

*165Hz refresh rate with DisplayPort only”

Now I was really puzzled. This is the source. This is the company making the thing. Do they know something I don’t? I found their sales support email and wrote them to get some clarification on the listing. Like B&H, they were very prompt in their response: 

Thank you for contacting ViewSonic!

Taking a look at the VX3418-2K, I can confirm that the USB-A is only for updating the monitors firmware. I have included an image of the user guide that explicitly states it.

Not too sure why it is marketed in this manner, but this is something we can take a look at and correct. Thank you for pointing this out.

So, they did… sort of… clumsily... and hastily: 

“Two HDMI (v2.0) inputs, one DisplayPort (v1.4) input, and one USB-A (v2.0) input** offer flexible connectivity so you can directly connect your keyboard, mouse and other peripherals.

Change the way you work and play with the VX3418-2K monitor today.

*165Hz refresh rate with DisplayPort only

**For firmware updgrade (sic) use only”

I hear LG monitors are pretty good.

Keeping Watch in the Walled Garden

Full disclosure: I'm writing this on a Mac mini while my iPhone 12 mini charges and before I do a little drawing on my iPad Pro later. 

Officially, I identify as platform agnostic. I don't care what operating system I have to use; I will make it work. I grew up on classic MacOS, I switched over to Windows XP shortly after college, I was a Linux user for a while, and my phone choices have been equally all over the map. I'm far from an early adopter, but you name it, I've probably tried it. Ever heard of Maemo? Symbian? 

For my money, Apple makes exactly two good products, the Mac mini and the iPad Pro. I often joke to people, "I don't have an iPhone. I have an iPad... Oh, by the way, did you know Apple makes a camera? It takes calls too for some reason." Also in the interest of full disclosure, I have a smartwatch from Fossil that works well enough with my iPhone. I have no desire to buy an Apple Watch. For perspective, my favorite feature about my Fossil is that it doesn't have a screen. It's got a plain, ordinary watch face (which I think is called a complication if you're in the know) and the hands occasionally move to different positions based on what notifications I've set it to. In recent months, however, this has stopped working. It's a little irritating, but I don't miss it. It certainly doesn't make me want to buy an Apple Watch. Those could well be famous last words, but on the whole, the only Watch feature that had my attention was using it as a painter's palette for Procreate, and I don't even think that feature is supported anymore. As for my Fossil, I've actually stopped wearing it altogether. I simply don't need a watch that much, and its use as a pedometer and sleep tracker are simply no longer part of my daily habit. 

As of this writing, the Department of Justice has taken Apple to court over its monopolistic practices, particularly in the smartphone market. Among its talking points was the fact the Apple Watch currently only works with iPhones. Android users are simply out of luck and have to settle for a Garmin, a Fossil, a Fitbit.... 

I'm not saying the DOJ doesn't have some kind of a case against Apple. What I am saying is that their angle of attack speaks more to their lack of knowledge not only of the technology, but of the market itself. This isn't like 20 years ago when Microsoft was under the microscope for their own monopolistic practices, but this is far from apples to apples (no pun intended). That's why I brought up all the other smartwatch brands, smartwatch brands that work with both Apple and Android devices. Moreover, I'm a little confused by this talking point. The DOJ is saying Apple has too much of the smartwatch marketshare with their watch which is exclusive to Apple products. So, what happens if they add Android support? Wouldn't that give them a bigger piece of the pie they allegedly already have too much of? Won't that just land them back in court for the exact same offense but now with slightly different wording? Wouldn't that make any ruling on the matter tantamount to self-incrimination? 

Personally, I don't know anyone who wants an Apple Watch so badly they're willing to give up their Android phone to get one. That's simply not the market we live in. Once upon a time, I worked for a cell carrier that did not earn the iPhone's exclusivity contract with AT&T. Needless to say, this led to a deluge of calls about when the iPhone was coming to our neck of the woods and what hoops would have to be jumped through to make it happen. A workaround did emerge at one point. The iPhone's exclusivity was limited to the United States, so it was possible to use the phone on our network... in Germany. That means you'd have to import a German iPhone, and use a German SIM card, which meant all of your calls would be international ones. Would you believe someone I spoke with still wanted one after all that was explained to them, that it would literally cost them more to use the phone in a month than to buy the thing outright because all of their calls would be for a German number on a North American network? I have no idea if this person went through with their plan, though I like to think he got as far as putting in a bid on an eBay listing before losing it and taking it as a sign to simply wait for the iPhone to be available on other networks. He didn't have to wait long and, frankly, those early iterations of the iPhone are among the many reasons I'm not an early adopter. My first iPhone was a 5c, which was only supposed to be a temporary device while my Sony Xperia phone was getting its battery replaced. None of my iPhones have been the newest model. 

There was likely a certain time in my life when I suffered from the dreaded Fear of Missing Out, but I was a kid, and like all kids, I grew up. So, when I see people lining up to buy a phone or a game console on launch day, I don't envy them. In fact, I only sort of feel bad for them. Do you know who was the first person in North America to own a Nintendo 64? Neither do I. I don't think anyone knows. Even with social media, I don't think we could ever know for certain the name and face of the first person to own a Playstation 5. I'm sure it was a big deal to them, whoever they are, but let's not pretend that this FOMO business is anything to give in to or follow like a cartoon character floating toward a pie cooling on a windowsill. 

I think the DOJ is misunderstanding FOMO, treating it like some perfectly rational mindset in a consumer-driven economy regulated (loosely) by a democratic republic. Someone really wanting an Apple Watch does not make the niche Apple has carved out for itself a monopoly, even if that niche is worth several billion dollars. 

"What do you mean this person has to get a new phone for their watch to work!? This is an injustice!" 

Seriously, where is this attitude when it comes to big Pharma or the oil companies? 

That'$ only a $lightly rhetorical que$tion. 

My point is that the monopoly Apple has allegedly made for itself is nothing like the one that Microsoft got called out on 20-some years ago or the one AT&T was broken up over however long before that. I can't run MacOS on a Microsoft Surface tablet. I can't play Nintendo Switch games on my iPhone. I can't use a BMW part in my Honda. The list goes on. If Apple wants to paint themselves into a corner by playing their cards close to the chest, let them and most importantly let the market decide whether that's playing fair in the game of capitalism. 

Just glasses and utensils now

This has not been a good day, and it's only been morning for about four hours.

I'll leave out the goings-on with my roommate's irritability due to a mishap at her doctor's office resulting in a lapse in receiving her medication. That's been going on a few days and it's mostly tolerable.

This morning I received some equipment I ordered to help with recording my videos, including a Behringer USB mic. I've officially had it installed for about 40 minutes and I'm already thinking about sending it back.

Here's the problem: when I use my webcam to record one of my v-logs or newer reviews, I use Windows Media Encoder as capture software. The main reason for this is that it lets me configure audio and video separately; I can use one device for video, and one for audio (That way, I'm not at the mercy of the webcam's awful built-in mic). Everything seems fine, I set the audio settings to the USB mic, and the video settings to the Ipevo, and set the recording format. Once I hit start, however, I get an error message:

no specified device driver is present 0xC00D0072

This is just impossible as I've installed all necessary drivers and, prior to starting the recording session, the program acknowledged the device's presence and allowed it to be configured. I went to Behringer's site to verify that I did indeed have the most recent driver. I found little to no support articles about the C-1U and ended up having to send an e-mail detailing the issue with WME. I've gotten the obligatory auto-response that it's been received, but a full reply is going to take about one business day. So, that's up in the air.

Then there's the mic itself. It may not work with WME, but it does work with Sound Recorder and Photo Story 3 (though the latter gives me error messages to the contrary despite recordings). I figured that while I'm waiting on a response from Behringer, I'll see how the mic sounds and get a feel for its sensitivity. Ideally, I'd like to have it sitting on my desk next to my webcam so it's not visible in the frame. As a sort of control for the experiment, I just put held it like a Karaoke mic and recorded that way. It sounded brilliant; one of the best microphones I've had. However, when I tried recording again with it on the desk and next to the webcam, it's a whole new story. I should have guessed this might be the case given that putting it on the desk makes a distance of about 2 or 3 feet between me and the mic. That said, it's still really disheartening that I basically have to lean into the mic in order to get the best sound. I'd have to hold it almost directly in front of my mouth while I'm recording, which also means I won't have a free hand if I have to do a review. Me holding a microphone while recording with a webcam would just look horrendous, and it's just not what I got this mic for at all.

So, after days of waiting, and on top of everything else, I finally get my equipment to find that, even if I can get it to interface with my software and recording system, it's completely useless and impractical.

At least I got some of the dishes done before the UPS guy showed up, so the day hasn't started off to a fully-rotten start.

So I've Started Using Ubuntu

And I lost my job. 

Don't worry, there's a fallback, so we'll be fine. 

Anyway, to cure my newfound boredom, I took up installing Ubuntu on my PC to see what all the fuss was about. I've used Linux and Unix based systems before; my N810 uses a Linux-based OS called Maemo and pretty much any OS on a device that isn't a personal computer (phones, DVRs, game consoles besides the Dreamcast, PDAs) has the Linux kernel somewhere in its silicon-based bloodstream. 

So far, I really kind of like it. As long as not too much is asked of it, it basically performs well. My only real gripe about Linux (apart from what I'll get to in a minute) is the absence of a good digital video editing program. Seriously, between iMovie and Windows MovieMaker (along with at least five other similar programs I could name), there's absolutely no reason for their to not be a Linux answer to the challenge. Granted, there are web-based video editors, but the only one that was really worth its salt was JumpCut, which has closed its door possibly to allow its servers and resources to be used to help Flickr store its video uploads (both are Yahoo! companies). Sure, there's Adobe's Remix for Photobucket, but 1) I hate photobucket, and 2) it doesn't allow you uploads of your own audio files, limiting you to preselected soundtracks. I can understand the legal reasons behind this, but it still feels like a slap in the face. 

Back to Ubuntu. For those unfamiliar with Linux-based operating systems, here's a little background information. Linxu operating systems are freely distributable and can be installed on any PC or even Macintosh, either alongside the existing OS, or supplanting it altogether. Applications are available through a kind of open market with apps being developed by small independent (many to the point of homebrew) developers with the technical skill to bring  Linux Operating Systems like RedHat and Suse have come and (mostly) gone due to various issues revolving around technical support and the justifiable overhead required for such support, but Ubuntu is different because its benefactor, Canonical, has hit upon the brilliant business model wherein the OS itself is free but the technical support is a paid service. 

Of course, I don't think I'd ever need their technical support, since most any problems with a PC can be solved by simply turning it off and back on again or, at worst, having to reinstall the whole shebang (which shouldn't even be that big of an issue, because you should be backing up your files anyway). Here's the ultimate boon of Ubuntu: reinstalling the OS (if necessary) is completely and utterly painless, not just because it's free, but because you don't have to worry about serial numbers or registration keys or requesting a boot-up disk from the company or any of those little annoying things that other companies (we'll just use Microsoft as an example) use to stamp out (read: encourage) piracy of an over-priced operating system plagued by more gremlins than every faulty mechanical device in the history of the entire planet put together. Canonical could care less about how many copies of your original boot-up CD you've made; they encourage you to put the OS on anything you can find, be it a CD or even a thumb-drive. 

There are, however, some cons to beat down the pros. As I've said, the operating system is free and produced by independent developers with little or no actual overhead to run a proper support or (more importantly) Quality Assurance department. What this means is that, when you get an application for Linux, you're kind of taking a gamble because chances are, the program was written entirely by as little as one person with as little as absolutely no beta testing. Yes, Microsoft charges an arm and a leg for Microsoft Office, but that's because that price tag is keeping a lot of employees employed and families of employees fed and clothed. Put simply, you get what you pay for. Notable exceptions would include the Open Office suite, which was developed in part by Sun Microsystems, the guardians and protectors of the Java programming language that helps to hold the internet together. In other words, they're good people and you can trust them totally. 

Expanding on the 'justifiable overhead' paradigm, the other inherent problem with Linux is that, without the benefit of a huge market share (Microsoft) or a fervent and dedicated yet eclectic fanbase (Apple), elaborate and complex applications like Digital Video Editors (Final Cut, After Effects, Avid), graphics programs (Maya, Vue3D, or even Terragen), and games (Call of Duty, Oblivion, Command and Conquer) are going to be either very few and far between on Linux, or non-extant altogether. In other words, Linux is going to basically find its core audience in casual users, people who would only want a PC for very basic tasks, like web-browsing, writing papers, making simple presentations for work, storing and managing digital photos, or anything else that wouldn't otherwise require a state-of-the-art graphics card or a lightning-fast processor or more RAM than the Swiss Alps. 

And that leads us to the Catch-22 of becoming a Linux user. The only way to bring Linux to a casual user is to either: 

1) buy a PC with no pre-installed OS, which is practically impossible (because the price tag of every PC includes the operating system, meaning that buying any PC regardless of which OS you intend to use puts money in Bill Gates' or Steve Jobs' respective pockets.) 

Or 2) build a PC from individual components, which casual PC users wouldn't have the mindset to do in the first place (because then they wouldn't be casual; they'd then be a savvy, savvy?). 

Netbooks (small, affordable PCs intended predominately for web-browsing) like the Pepper Pad or the Asus EeePC are a step in the right direction, but it's just not quite enough yet. So, here's hoping....