An Open Letter to the Westfield Group

This blog is not affiliated with, managed, sponsored, or written by Westfield. The logo above was linked from another blog to support the reader's regarding Westfield's influence on shopping.


Dear Westfield,

For the sake of discussion, call me "Franchise".  For the sake of demographics, I'm in my 30's, and fairly well traveled.  I consider myself a fan of technology and everything it grants a person, and I am not afraid to try new things.  That said, I don't like when good things change.  In those cases I am a strong resistor until I see that what has happened ends up better than what came before.  It is this that I want to speak to you about, and I hope this letter finds its way into the right hands of those who can make a difference.

Let's Talk About Western Governors University

This blog is not affiliated with, managed, sponsored, or written by Western Governors University. The logo above was linked from another blog to support the reader's confirmation that the source material matches the school for which they are searching.

"Diploma mill!!"

If you've done frequent searches online, this is likely the first thing you've seen on numerous sites, and it's got you curious whether or not this school is credible.

No time to read?  The answer: WGU is NOT a diploma mill.  Not even close to one.  As hard as it may be to believe, it's the real deal, and deserves a serious look for anyone wanting to continue their education.  (For the bullet reasons and to skip the below, go to the very bottom of the post.

WWE's Missed Opportunities

I'm starting to notice a pattern with WWE.  It's a pattern I've seen before: tons of talent, not used in an obvious or logical way.

I just got done watching RAW.  Alberto Del Rio was on commentary with Zeb Colter during what was arguably the best match of the night, a three-way tag match with Cena and the Rhodes Brothers vs. Damien Sandow and the Real Americans.  Never mind for the moment the fact that Cena is not main eventing the night.  Never mind the fact that the Real Americans are losing matches.  The tag team scene in WWE is at its hottest, and now is the time for them to strike and get some good bids out of it.

What we have here...are factions.

Why PG WWE Can't Work Long Term

Viewing this blog post is likely hazardous for someone who feels that the programming on television should always be child friendly.  It's an unfortunate state of affairs when you can't even have the kind of programming quality and separation that we used to have before the days of the internet, cell phones, tablets and other mobile devices.  Because you see, a lot of parents simply allow their technology to raise their kids.  They don't have a concept of proper parenting, and they lose sight of what really matters: Your kids should be watching certain types of programming.  You should (or may) watch other types of programming.  The two are oil and water.

The Problem With "The Cloud"

It's the going buzzword these days.  Everyone wants to move to this thing called "The Cloud" and apparently - allegedly - all of your storage worries go out the door completely.  In an era where mobile devices are gaining traction and fixed desktops are starting to be less available, it seems a logical evolution.

Only problem is that there is a piece people are missing, and until that piece is in place, "The Cloud" is really vaporware.

Really Bad Words: "Busy"

Everyone is fully aware of the various swear words that exist.  I won't repeat them here.  But did you know that they're not really "bad" words?  Perhaps words that certain audiences don't care to hear, or terms that may offend certain groups.  But they're not "bad" in that they don't do direct harm.  There are a number of words that do harm others, even if you don't realize they are harming.  The harm may be to a friendship, a relationship, an interview, a business meeting, or some other social event.  I call these Really Bad Words, and we're going to start with one of the worst: "Busy".

What?

Much Ado About Requirements

Maybe you're a Project Manager who is ready to attack my commentary.
Maybe you're a Developer who is ready to applaud it.

Either way, you're reading it, and that's progress.

If you work in IT, you've heard the term "requirements" before.  You have a basic idea of what requirements are, and what they're supposed to do for you, your customer and your team.  If you're on the end user side, you may have heard the term thrown around by various IT people in their quest to get you a solution that works for you.  The problem is that many people fail to understand how to avoid what I can only term "bad requirements".

Microsoft "Security Essentials" - Nope.

What Microsoft currently calls its "Security Essentials" suite is really, frankly, a scam.  At least, in the post-Windows XP world.  How they pulled the wool over people's eyes is brilliant, and I don't blame them for the approach.  However, calling it any sort of security "essential" is borderline false.  I can't complain since they don't charge for the product, but I felt it necessary to divulge things you may need to know about this so you can make informed decisions.

Viva Las Vegas

I attended a business conference from Sunday all the way through Thursday. The conference was in Las Vegas, & I admit to being someone over the excited about the idea of meeting people that I haven't interacted with in a long time. (And no, it's not at Golden Nugget.  I just like that casino.)

I was completely packed well ahead of time, and I had my clothes set out for an easy TSA walk through. I also had subscribed to the NEXUS program, and I tested that with flying colors (later).

By the way, this is what I look like right out of bed:

There was a time when I could simply walk out of the house never having touched any part of my head.  An ex girlfriend would get upset at me for having such fortune.  But those days are long since past I fear.

My packing skills remain peerless.  6 days worth of clothes, underclothes, toiletries, and assorteds, in a bag this size.  I thought I should include a DVD so you can get a sense of how not-big the bag is.

To help the matter, I got some McDonalds Bacon, Egg (White) and Cheese Biscuits, a large coffee and a small orange juice.  That gave me enough energy for the next 4 hours.

I breezed through TSA Pre-Check in 2-3 minutes.  In fact, they order you not to take your shoes off or to take anything out of the bag.  I found that rather interesting.  (more to this story on the trip back, though.)

In case you've never seen SeaTac (Seattle-Tacoma International Airport), once you get past TSA, this is what you're confronted with.  Quite visually appealing.

 Since I was terribly early, as usual, I figured I would prepare my system with the elixir that keeps me forever young: Starbucks' Shaken Iced Green Tea, Unsweetened.  No matter how hot it may be, you will be refreshed.  I AM straightedge, after all.

Once on board the plane it was a different ball game.  

Rather than local shots at the airport, I got to capture what I'm 98.76% sure is Mount Rainier, as the plane reached altitude.  I included the normal shot as well as one that was post-processed by the Nexus 7 (I didn't want to pull out the Galaxy S4 and have the flight attendant start yelling about phones on the plane).

I got asked more often than I care to admit why I would pay $50 to upgrade to first class on a 2 hour flight.  The answer is simple.  I come from the old school when airplane tickets were over $500 a piece, but with that you got roomy, comfortable seats, REAL meals, and a much more pleasant flying experience.  That's back when you had airlines like Northwest, Pan Am and TWA.  But I digress: I am one of those who is willing to pay for a comfortable experience, especially on shorter flights.  $50 is a small price to pay for that experience and I really wish they would consider doing it upfront at that price.  I mean look.

REAL glasses.  Clean trays.  A very well prepared veggie wrap.  This kind of stuff used to be standard on planes and I'm sad to see people settling for the garbage they put out now.  I on the other hand am more than willing to pay for this.

Anyway, I arrived fine, and National Car Rental as always took good care of me.  I'm an Emerald Club member, and under Alaska's Mileage Plan saved quite a bit of money.  The way it works: you rent a midsize car but can pick any of the cars currently on the Emerald Aisle, which include full size and SUVs.  Look at what they had waiting for me.  A Ford Fusion Titanium (non-Hybrid).  I got to feel right at home, although the car ran rather rough given it only had like 8,500 miles on it.  I'm assuming that's the EcoBoost engine; compared to Aston Marcus which purrs like a kitten, I wasn't impressed, but at least it was a familiar overall experience.

Here I am, approaching the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino.  More on this scam hotel later.

My hotel reservation was very nearly messed up.  I had to pay out of pocket to at least stay the night.  Fortunately it got sorted Monday morning.  But I didn't like having to pay money.  I then proceeded to settle in and relax for the conference.  I did go to the local stores to get some food though; I wasn't paying the ripoff prices for snacks (more on that later).

Here are some shots from the event.

My tweet even made it up on their ticker.  How cool is that?

I also got to visit a past co-worker which was refreshing, and despite the nonsense traffic from the Mayweather/Canelo fight crowds, I did enjoy the fight itself.

Before leaving, I had to make sure to get a couple of shots from my hotel room window.  It was facing the strip, so I took full advantage.  First, a small panorama in the daytime (and unfortunately, since Mandalay Bay doesn't believe in washing their windows, it wasn't a very clear shot).

Then, I caught this rather appealing shot the night before I headed home.

 At the Las Vegas Airport, after turning in my car (which consisted of simply parking it and walking away, mind you), I then patiently awaited my flight home, capturing some of the signage (aka, a bunch of TVs slapped together in a crooked pattern).

All in all a great week.  I learned a lot and got quite a bit of useful information from the trip which I'm eager to share with the team.  This was the first time I'd gotten to attend one of these particular conferences though I'd helped others go, so it was enlightening.  A bit overkill with some of the fluff, but a great event nonetheless.

Tune in later for my review (aka REAMview) of the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino.

The "Windows 8 Recovery" Bug

You probably ended up here from a Google Search.  Good.

And yes, it's a bug.  One that Microsoft has yet to fix.  And you will at some point find yourself encountering it.  In order to explain its resolution, I need to explain the bug, and the technology behind it in a way you can consume.

I'm a big "teach a man how to fish" fan.  So I'm going to first explain why you're having a problem, then I'll give you the definitive solution.  I'm almost confident that you've browsed many forums, help articles, and tech sites that give you plenty of "fixes", only to find none of them work.  That's why I have to teach you why the issue is an issue before I give the solution because, there isn't a single solution for everyone.

In a nutshell:  Windows itself is preventing the successful run of the recovery application.

A quick disclaimer.  The solution I put here is how I fixed mine.  I have seen a couple of other solutions, and I'll share them, but I honestly don't think they're the root of the problem, rather a symptom of the underlying issue, which is based on what I put here.  That's a theory only.  It at least will point you in the right direction.

About Shadow Copy Technology
Back in the days of Windows Millennium, Microsoft made common a technology that was later refined into what we know of today as System Restore.  This allows Windows to create hidden "snapshots" of your computer's configuration, so that you can "rollback" in the event of an issue or in the event software or hardware is installed that causes problems.  Initially, this was a standalone process, but it evolved over time into a hybrid technology that runs in the background, called Volume Shadow Copy.  The idea of snapshots is that a background service can evaluate and make a compressed replica of the entire structure of a disk much faster than a running program.  It also gets around the issue of locked files because the snapshot service is constantly evaluating everything on the computer.

About System Restore
System Restore allows you to store copies of fixed points in time of your computer so that you can roll back in the event of an issue or failure.  In concept, you can leave System Restore running for a quick and easy restoration of the computer's setup.  It will not save you from viruses, because if a virus infects your restore points, you will only end up restoring the same virus in place.  Rather, it is designed for instances where something you have installed or changed needs to be quickly undone, and the computer restored to a previous state.

Note that System Restore is NOT a backup, in that it cannot be transferred to any other computer or restored from a different version of Windows.  It also should not be the only safety net used to protect your Windows installation from damage or corruption.

How Windows 8 Is Affected
When Windows 8 is first activated, System Restore is running in the background constantly.  This is represented by hidden devices that are mounted where the shadow copies are stored.  The service that runs this process is started manually when the computer is booted, but doesn't terminate while System Restore is running.  The problem here is that while the Volume Shadow Copy service is running for System Restore, that service cannot then be used for other imaging processes that may make use of it.

The Solution
First, verify your failure is the same as mine.

The dreaded "The recovery image cannot be written" error.  Yours likely failed at 27% or thereabouts.  The reason mine failed earlier was because I stopped the Volume Shadow Copy service midstream, verifying a connection between what recimg.exe does and that service, to drill down the root cause of the error.

Second, disable System Restore on your C: drive.  This might cause you to panic, but I submit you can always turn it back on after this process has completed if you really want Restore running (and I do recommend having it run at least a little).  You'll want to disable System Restore AND delete all restore points.  This is to ensure that the Volume Shadow Copy service does not try to access anything.  You don't need to reboot afterwards.

For your Windows (C:) drive, highlight it and click Configure at the bottom to disable the Restore.  You can also do some Google searching for more information about this process.  It's not hard.  But I write this assuming you are somewhat versed in how to get to the above window.

Third, disable the Volume Shadow Copy service under the Services console.  Leave it set to Manual.  This will allow recimg.exe to call it independently when it starts to run.

Once the above steps have been completed, go ahead and re-run your command, and let it run.  Of course, make sure you have at least 8GB of space free on your drive (thus the reason for deleting old System Restore points).  This time, you should (hopefully) get a different result.

From here you can continue following the steps to create your USB recovery drive.

Also, it's possible that if you change your Windows 8 version, your OS may "forget" that there actually is a recovery partition already present.  In my case, I upgraded to the version with Media Center, and even though there's clearly 8GB reserved for the recovery partition, Windows 8 swears I didn't have one.  I'll delete it once I verify the USB drive is working fine.

Some other things I've read:

• Uninstall TrueCrypt
• TrueCrypt, depending on how you've got it working, may have a hidden volume defined that is choking recimg.exe for the same reason.  Uninstalling seems to be the solution, but obviously, I wouldn't suggest installing TrueCrypt in the first place.  Run it in portable mode.  
• BCD (Boot Configuration) in use as C:\bcd
• This can occur if you've got dual boot or other software that requires changes to boot configuration, such as partition managers and the like.  But under normal circumstances this folder shouldn't even exist.  Some have suggested running mountvolume.exe C:\bcd /d to resolve the issue, but all that does is map the folder to a disk.  it's better to resolve the reason for it being present (a quick reboot may do just that).

Revisiting the Delta Quadrant: "Basics: Part 1"

While Star Trek: Voyager was almost universally panned for being an overly sappy, somewhat lacking offshoot for the Star Trek franchise that had spanned decades, there were quite a few quality moments in the seasons.  Some comments that I read indicated that people often thought negatively about the character development of the crew; it seemed the only ones that the writers really cared about were Seven of Nine and The Doctor.  This is partially true, at least going by seasons 6 and 7.  But when you had episodes like "Meld" and the continuation in the dual-part "Basics", it's obvious that the writers could tell a great story when they were pressed to.

In "Meld", we saw Lon Suder being placed in jail for killing another crewmember, and Tuvok learning the hard way that Suder was simply an over-violent individual.  The episode makes it seem as though this is a black-and-white judgment of a crime and a criminal that seemingly has no heart.  But "Basics" teaches us the reason the Maquis is so dangerous - and the flaws of Starfleet.

"Basics" begins with what seems to be an earnest outreach from Seska to Chakotay.  The message implies that Chakotay's son is in danger from Culluh.  After some internal debate - and soul searching with his father in a spirit form - they decide to investigate.  Stumbling across one of Culluh and Seska's aides in the Kazon who has been gravely injured, Chakotay is informed that Seksa has died.  The injured Kazon provides Culluh's codes and a map to get around the Kazon fleet.

On the way, Voyager is ambushed by Kazon, and it's obvious from the attacks that there is something not quite right.  Here's where the problems start.

1. The Kazon specifically target the secondary command processor.  Yet Janeway, Kim, Tuvok, Chakotay, or Torres...not ONE of them makes the connection of what would be impacted by the loss of the processor.  Considering that processor is apparently how the self destruct is managed, this is simply stupid writing.  Kim even goes so far as to call it a "non-critical system" - seems prety darn critical!
2. The injured Kazon takes a metallic syringe from his large toenail, and injects himself with it, apparently triggering a chemical reaction that causes a large explosion.  It's funny that Odo can detect disparate chemicals and make the connection (DS9: "Improbable Cause") and he knows nothing about chemicals or biology, yet the Doctor AND Tuvok missed this blatant clue!
3. When Suder offers to support the ship's aeroponics, and presents his findings to Janeway, he uncharacteristically (based on his mannerisms in "Meld") pleads with her to consider his offer.  Even worse, Janeway seems absolutely inconsiderate to what he wants to do, even though they always need food.  
4. When they are stranded on the planet, Janeway directs Kes to keep people from going in the caves, and by her tone, she is making no exceptions due to Hogan's death.  Yet, Chakotay blatantly endangers members of the crew by directing them into the cave.  Neither Kes or Tuvok question this breach of orders.
5. Has anyone noticed that the bugs that Janeway offers to the crew, look remarkably like tube grubs (DS9: "Ferengi Love Songs") and the very unappealing worms from TNG: "Conspiracy"?
6. When the Doctor reativates himself, and asks the computer for bio scans, the computer indicates there is "one Betazoid".  Given he's the Doctor, and given he's part of the computer, AND given he should know all members of the crew and their physiology, why does he not make the attachment that the Betazoid must logically be Suder?

A lot of plotholes, to be sure.  It was still an exciting episode at times, and Lon Suder was one of the best characters in the DS9 universe.  The character development was through the roof, too.

Large Capacity Drives and Windows: "746GB of Doom"

You probably ended up here from a Google Search.  Good.

It's extremely probable that you bought a snazzy new 3TB or greater drive, in the hopes of loading all of your "legally purchased" movies and music to it, so you can stream to all of your mobile devices in a nirvana of media gold.

Only problem is, Windows swears your drive only has 746-ish GB of storage.  So you assume the drive is defective.  It's not.  In fact, it's your hardware that's the problem, and we really should blame computer and accessory manufacturers (such as Seagate, Western Digital, AMD, Intel, etc) for not having what I consider necessary disclaimers.

I'm a big "teach a man how to fish" fan.  So I'm going to first explain why you're having a problem, then I'll give you the definitive solution.  I'm almost confident that you've browsed many forums, help articles, and tech sites that give you plenty of "fixes", only to find none of them work.  That's why I have to teach you why the issue is an issue before I give the solution because, there isn't a single solution for everyone.  It depends on your hardware.

In a nutshell: your hardware is too stupid to read the capacity properly because it's stuck in the Dark Ages.

"but I just bought this computer!!" good.  That'll make it easier to fix your issue, because you'll have less steps.  On the other step, if your computer was top notch back when Apple was on the verge of going out of business, I suggest you upgrade.  There's no reason not to.  Desktops can be had for under $300, laptops for under $600.  You don't need state-of-the-art, but you do need to be recent.  Here's why.

Storage History
Back in the 90's the concept of cylinders, sectors, and blocks was a very simple and easy method of "telling" a drive how much storage it had.  Most common users never needed to care about this metric, but if you needed to run tools, you might have heard the term "bad sector".  This indicated a problem with one of the parts of the drive that data was stored on, and just about every operating system had tools to correct these errors.  Meanwhile, the BIOS (think of it as the "brain" of your computer.  It tells your hardware and software how to talk to each other) did not advance rapidly to consider higher levels of storage.  It was not unheard of to think that 160MB of disk storage was a big deal, and it was....back when programs barely took 1MB.  Now, most programs can easily take up to 500MB to 1GB or more depending on the program.

Larger disks yielded opportunities that people didn't have before.  Unfortunately, the hardware and software did not advance fast enough to keep up with the need for greater storage.  Windows Millennium (for those that can remember) and operating systems at that time could barely tap more than a certain amount of storage, and were limited to what file sizes could be accessed.  Windows XP and Windows 2000 helped this along a bit, but it was really (ironically) Windows Vista that opened the door to more possibilities.  It was the first operating system where the idea of UEFI was discussed as the next evolution of BIOS.

Where standard BIOS was akin to rubbing sticks together to make fire - functional but primitive - UEFI is more akin to using urine as an electrical conductor; natural, though still crude, and requiring very little resource to manage.  It allows the hardware to address more storage than the older BIOS, and as such, allows computers to make use of the greater hardware.

Then you run into the motherboard itself.  Older motherboards supported older connector types; any computer purchased within the past decade should easily be able to tap into SATA connections.  SATA provides a much easier way of connecting drives to the board, and faster throughput speeds; but beyond the connector type, there are different SATA flavors.  A large capacity drive is likely going to support SATA III, which boards within the past 3 years should support.  That means if your computer is older than that, your drive will work, but not nearly as fast as it could.  Some drives may even compel you to apply jumper settings to essentially "throttle" the drive own to the lower speed your board supports.  Rather than fumbling with jumpers, let me give you a small tidbit of advice: just upgrade.  Seriously.

While UEFI deals with and relieves the hardware challenges, you still have the software challenges.  The reason for this: The Master Boot Record, or MBR.  Known to old hardware technicians for decades as the easiest, simplest and least brain taxing method of configuring drive partitioning, it also was limiting to the operating system, as the MBR did not allow for supporting disk volume sizes greater than 1.5TB.  What throws people is the name: Master "Boot" Record, which still limits you even if you don't plan to boot from the disk.  Thus the GUID Partition Table, or GPT, was introduced.  I would point out that GPT was supported in Apple's Mac OS for quite some time, but rarely used, since UEFI did not get introduced but within the past few years.  Windows did not catch up with both until Vista, but Windows by design wants to do everything with MBR because the operating system leans towards that by default.  Even in Windows 8 it is not smart enough to detect drive size when making the decision.

The net effect of the above is a crapshoot that may reveal itself as a 746-ish GB drive.  Even though it is supposed to support 3TB/4TB.

The Solution
The answer to this depends on your hardware.  I will first tell you what WON'T work, then talk about what will.  All of this assumes you have a newer computer.  If you have an older computer, half of these suggestions won't work for you.  You need to upgrade.  If you're running an operating system lower than Windows Vista Service Pack 2, you need to upgrade.  (and frankly, there's no excuse for you not being on Windows 7 by now.)

First, don't bother trying with an external housing or USB-SATA cable.  Most people will be tempted to do this to try and set the drive up, or perhaps they plan to leave it there, or perhaps they don't want to put it in a computer.  Don't do this.  Why?  While you could find an enclosure that would support the drive, they're significantly more expensive, for less value.  Also, you want to make sure you're truly seeing the drive for what it's supposed to be, and the best way to do that is to install it directly into the computer.  This isn't to say it's impossible to work external, but the #2 edict of troubleshooting is process of elimination: remove all other variables, and whatever you're left with must be the cause.  (FYI, the #1 edict is Occam's Razor: The easiest answer is usually the correct one.)

This doesn't apply to a NAS device, because a NAS has a built-in operating system and hardware and, provided the box marks it so, should properly support the larger sizes.

Second, DON'T format the drive if it's not installed in the computer.  You can correct this but it's just wasting time.  Again, you want to be directly connected to make sure the right size is reported.

After considering the above, you should do the below, in the exact order.

First, install all Windows and hardware updates.  Even if you have to go to the manufacturer directly (which I had to do.  More on that later).  Why?  Because often, the hardware vendor will have shipped a device without UEFI and with an older chipset that doesn't support large storage, but publish an update so you can add the support.  You'll want to make sure all of these updates are applied, especially BIOS updates.

For AMD Chipsets you will almost certainly need to download the latest drivers from their site.  DO NOT just trust the computer manufacturer's website.  In my experience, which was a Gateway, they did not include chipset drivers in the Catalyst package, even though it said it was included.  The chipset drivers were not added until I got the package from AMD directly.  You need to make sure that your driver reads as AHCI.  This is critical.  If you aren't able to locate an AHCI driver, your board may not support the larger drives.

For Intel Chipsets you will likely need to make sure that Intel's Rapid Storage Technology software is installed.  This software essentially acts as a driver for the chipset that allows it to address larger storage pieces.  Many online forums have alluded to the need for this.  But make sure you actually have Intel (it should be a sticker on the computer), because if it's not Intel and you use Intel's driver scan, you will blue screen.

Second, install the drive into the computer. If it's a small form factor machine you may need to permanently (or temporarily) remove the CD/DVD drive.  In my case I have no need for an optical drive in the computer since external ones are around $20 and will do for the one-off disk access I need, so I removed the optical drive and got special mounts to load the storage drive in its place.  That gives me a primary disk of 500GB and a storage disk of 3TB (2.8TB available).  MAKE SURE YOUR COMPUTER IS POWERED OFF AND UNPLUGGED FOR A FEW MINUTES BEFORE DOING THIS!!

Third, boot into the BIOS.  Different manufacturers use different keys to do this.  It might be Delete, might be F2, might be F6.  Should tell you near the bottom when it's booting up.  The BIOS should have a blue-ish look; this is how you know it's UEFI.  If it's jet black with ugly yellow or gray or green text, you're on the older BIOS and you need to upgrade.  A BIOS upgrade is always downloaded from the computer manufacturer, and only takes a few minutes to do.  Also, if you have UEFI, make sure AHCI is enabled on your disks.  It should have such a setting though it may have a funny name.  Again, consult your computer manufacturer for questions about this.

Fourth, reboot the computer and let it load into Windows.  At this point you should be ready to set your drive up if everything was done correctly.  You'll need to go into Computer Management/Disk Management; Windows 8 has a different way of going about getting there, but if you can right-click on Computer and hit Manage, that step should work on every Windows OS.  You may get prompted to continue, go ahead and accept.  Then select Disk Management under Storage, and let it load.  You should then see something similar (but not exactly identical) to the below:

Notice that while my Disk is the proper size, I have three separate "chunks".  These are partitions that I've created to store different data.  The data lives on the same physical storage, but they are accessed individually.  In your case, you should end up with a Disk of the proper size, with a single "Unallocated" chunk.  As long as the size is close to correct, you're good to go. It will always be slightly lower than the storage on the sticker due to the way storage is calculated; do some searching for more info on that because it's TLDR material.

If you've gotten this far, congrats.  You've resolved your issue.  At this point I'm assuming you know how to do partitioning and drive setup, but if you don't, there are plenty of resources on the web about it.  This is only to resolve the short space issue with larger disks.

Followup on Verizon Wireless' "Share Everything" - Maximize The Value

Back on March 23rd, I posted a rather candid article detailing my analysis of Verizon Wireless' "Share Everything" offering.  Verizon Wireless' "Share Everything" is a Terrible Plan.

In that article, I gave statements that were true on their face. However, a call to Verizon Wireless Customer Service revealed, as always with them, hidden ways to work around the shortcomings of their plans. I'm going to tackle each statement, then I'm going to share information with you in case it's of value. Frankly, I don't think I should be doing their job for them; this is something they should openly advertise as a value, but whatever.

1. Under Verizon's ideal situation, I'd be forced into the following scenario.  The idea that they would force all of your lines into the "Share Everything".  This actually is true only online.  If you call (and in theory, in store, though I wouldn't trust this), you can isolate lines from "Share Everything".  The actual rule is, if you don't have any sort of share plan (family or Share Everything), you can have one and only one, but you don't have to include all lines as long as you specify which ones are excluded.  If you already have a family share plan, you have to do a lateral change to a Share Everything plan (since in a family plan all devices are already included).  If you've never had a shared plan but you have multiple lines, you can wrap some into Share Everything and leave some out.
   
   SO take this scenario.  A father has a smart phone with unlimited data, kids and wife have basic phones and maybe one tablet.  It's a LOT cheaper for the father to exclude his smartphone, because the Basic Phone plan's data tiers are substantially cheaper than the Smartphone one (which he'd be forced into if he wrapped his phone into the plan).
   
   Here's another scenario.  Frequent commuter has a smartphone with unlimited data, wants a tablet and a hotspot as he doesn't do much calling but he uses a lot of data.  He/she can wrap the two data devices in a Data Only Share Everything plan which is substantially cheaper than the smartphone one.
   
   Verizon REALLY needs to advertise this.
   
2. Data Only plans prohibit you from having a device capable of doing voice and/or text. Did you know that Verizon has a hidden share plan called "Data Only for Smartphones - Share Everything"? Did you know that said plan allows you to have smartphones AND data devices on the same share plan but at the Data Only prices (the ones I said were a way better deal)? If you're a heavy data user but a light voice/text user this is the plan for you. You cannot add it online. You must add it through Customer Service.
   
   Scenario: Family has a share plan but with one smartphone and two tablets. Smartphone is rarely used for voice or text. This plan would allow them to enjoy data only prices but keep the smartphone.
   
   There is one downside to this plan. IF you do voice/text it's pay-per-use. The voice minute price is a ripoff at $.50 cents/minute. No, that's not a typo: if you do an hour's worth of calls, you will add $30 to your bill. Considering that same call literally costs Verizon less than $.10 to complete for you, it's clear that this plan is not for everyone. But choice is never a bad thing.

So, I ended up changing four of my lines over to a Data Only for Smartphones Share Everything plan. Three of the lines are still suspended (and it took some doing to get this just right). One line was swapped to a 5510L Jetpack, so it gets 10GB of data all to itself. My main line keeps unlimited data and 450 minutes, which for me is more than enough. Over time I'll close the suspended lines, but I'm considering a tablet now that everything is the way I want it.

All told, my bill went down $10/month. I kept unlimited. Basically got hotspot for free, and tripled the available data over it. So in Verizon's eyes I'm just a cheapskate right? Wrong. The fact that I was able to make these changes opens my consideration for adding devices I wouldn't have bought before. I'm thinking about getting a new phone, thinking about getting a tablet. Now that data isn't an issue, I'm open to both.

Verizon should really consider advertising these alternate options. At least broadcast the fact that you don't have to wrap everything in Share Everything (unless you're a new customer of course) if you don't already have a share plan. They could stand to make a LOT of money and get more customers transitioned off unlimited over time.

Analyzing Wrestlemania 29: Cena vs. The Rock

Normally I wouldn't touch this topic with a lengthy pole, but I wanted to put thoughts to the web, and see if I am able to be proven wrong by WWE.  As a side note, being unpredictable is what gets people talking about your product.  If you do things that are easily seen a mile away, your product becomes stale - and that's why we're even at this point.

Surely, you remember back when the marketing genius at WWE decided to label Wrestlemania 28's gala as "Once in a Lifetime", right?  The big battle between John Cena and the Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson.  It was supposed to rival the likes of Rock vs. Hogan in terms of energy and the meeting of two different eras.  Prepended with a bunch of childish promos on both sides and teases aplenty, it ended up fizzling out for two reasons.  One, the ending was predictable.  Nobody in their right mind thought Cena was going to go Super on the Rock after he'd been gone so long.  Two, it was well known that Rock was going to leave again, albeit briefly, and to have him leave on a loss seemed illogical.  Well, the predictable became record, as the Rock beat Cena in what was arguably a dull, lifeless match that was outshined by others on the card.  Unlike with Rock/Hogan where the winner was simply too difficult to pin down, Cena/Rock was just not that great, and I blame Cena mostly for that.  Rock looked fantastic, even though it's clear his cardio isn't what it used to be.

Then the unthinkable happened.  Rock later beat CM Punk for the WWE title.  Not only that, he beat him with a People's Elbow.  The least impactful move in the guy's arsenal.  A move he has NEVER pinned anyone else with without a Rock Bottom attached.  

Now, the game has changed.  That outcome was not easily predictable.  It seemed totally unlikely that WWE would put its signature title on someone who was part time over CM Punk who'd had not only an extended run as champion, but also a tremendous repeated showing against Cena at PPVs, where Cena/Punk has often been the most electric of matches, especially with them pulling out forbidden moves in their 2/25 RAW showdown (Piledriver, anyone?).  I had no issue with this, where I had a problem is when Cena won the Royal Rumble, guaranteeing him a title shot, after eliminating Ryback.  Ryback is easily the most notable talent in current WWE, and he's now just bouncing from feud-to-feud, showing off his power rather than contending against CM Punk, the guy who beat him with illicit help from Brad Maddox at Hell in a Cell earlier.  To me, it would make more sense and be less predictable to have Ryback face the Rock (truly, a match we haven't seen that just MIGHT have been exciting) or CM Punk (now that Maddox is not a ref to help him cheat).  But I digress.

We're stuck with "Twice in a Lifetime".  The marketing guy who came up with "Once" should be fired.  C'est la vie.  Let's look at what WWE's options are.

1. Cena beats Rock, clean pin.  Since this would only happen after a move that the WWE Universe hates, this would only increase the hatred of Cena.  And maybe that's what WWE wants.  The scary thing is that this outcome would inevitably lead to "Thrice in a Lifetime", which may cost them viewers.
2. Rock beats Cena, clean pin.  Rock would get major cheers, but what would this accomplish?  Same outcome as the first contest, leaves Cena in a wasted space.  Unless they're sending him back to midcard, which I can't see happening, or Del Rio drops to Swagger and Cena goes against him, which to me accomplishes nothing.
3. Cena taps Rock.  Can you imagine the reaction on this?  It would mean Cena has made pretty much every single main eventer in WWE tap out, something Chris Benoit, Ric Flair and Daniel Bryan together have not accomplished.  The only main eventer left not having tapped to Cena would then be the Undertaker.  If Taker loses to Punk, he's guaranteed to retire, which means Cena would reign as the submission specialist.  GUARANTEED WWE would lose major viewers.
4. Cena cheats to win.  This would result in Cena getting cheers.  It wouldn't be a heel turn though, because he'd simply position that he was doing "whatever it took" to win.  I simply don't see this happening, as much as I'd like to.  I also don't see what it accomplishes UNLESS he does full heel.
5. Rock cheats to win.  Don't see it happening because the Rock doesn't need to cheat to beat Cena.  He's already proven that.
6. Shield interference.  This has been speculated.  If it happens it would be exciting if only the fact that it gets the Shield more exposure with one of the top tier players.  I don't see it happening, because Orton makes more sense.  He's more comfortable in factions (see Evolution, Legacy) than Cena (see CTC, Nexus).
7. No contest/DQ/Double Countout.  Possible.  But then they'd end up repeating Cena/Punk, and I don't see it happening. 

Rock is scheduled to go back to filming here soon, and while is planned to be engaged with WWE at leat part time going forward, he's never going to be doing weeklys or house shows.  As such, I don't see him holding the title past Wrestlemania.  To me, I think #3 is happening.  I don't want that, but it's what I see.  If WWE goes that route, they WILL lose viewers.

Verizon Wireless' "Share Everything" Is a Terrible Plan

Not for the reason you think.  But because Verizon's marketing team are a bunch of brilliant nerds who have managed to pitch the perfect way to entice families to join Big Red.

In case you weren't paying attention Verizon Wireless no longer has unlimited data.  But that's not entirely true.  What they did is position the data in a way that makes no sense whatsoever.  In summary, a device that will use more data, pays less than a device that happens to use data but is not used for data primarily.  That's where the problems begin, and if they don't change the plans, I fear I won't be able to join the fun anytime soon.  They don't even have to get rid of the plan, just modify it slightly.  Let me explain.

I have had Verizon service for years, since around 2006 or thereabouts.  In that time I have been mostly satisfied with the service I've received.  They're a little expensive, but not dramatically so over the competitors.  Where they in is coverage: If I do drop a call, it's because I'm in some sort of shielded building, but I've even been able to make and take calls from underground at times.  The CDMA technology has a lot to do with this I'm sure.  I'm also a regular user of Verizon's 4G LTE, which can often be nearly as fast as my home internet.  I used it during the entire drive from California to Washington State, and while it did drop to 3G in remote places, it stayed 4G for the majority, which is impressive.

Being the borderline hermit that I am, and since I have no wife or kids, all I really need is a plan of my own that gets me through the day.  I don't make many calls - less than 100 minutes a month by my recent estimate.  But again, I do use and rely on data.  It's not primary, but I use it during commutes, which can be up to 2 hours a day.  That could be for turn-by-turn navigation, web searching, music streaming, or any other regular use case.  I'm not a heavy user by any means.  It just needs to work when I need it.  Currently I'm still on Verizon's unlimited data plan for 4G phones which means I don't have to worry or care about hitting or exceeding any sort of limit.  I just use it to my heart's content, and pay the $20/month that makes it happen.  Verizon's smallest voice plan is 450 minutes at $39.99 a month, so I'm stuck with that too.

With Verizon Wireless' new "Share Everything" plan, they are trying to appeal directly to families and households, rather than the single professional.  The single plans no longer exist.  If you sign up with Verizon now, you'll be forced into a "Share Everything" plan, even if you have no intention of using multiple devices.  What's worse the pricing is as anti-user as it gets.  There are three layers:  Basic Device, Data Only, and Smartphone Plans.  Let's start with Basic Device, because it's the most ridiculous.

In order to make sense of the above you need to see some terms.  There's "access" and then there's "device".  Normally these two are bundled as one price, a rate you pay based on how much you anticipate using it.  In the "Share Everything" world, they're two separate items.  This price schedule (and all of the later ones) are essentially saying that you'll pay a certain amount per month to access the Verizon Wireless network (on the right), PLUS a certain amount per month for the device to be used on the network (on the left).  So here, you're paying $30/month for the privilege of using a basic phone PLUS $10/month for 700 minutes, or $40/month for unlimited talk and text.  

Confused?  Don't feel bad.

Think of it as $40/month for basic cell service (Which is actually a ripoff, since others offer the same for $20-$30/month but not with as many minutes) or $70/month for an unlimited service and a tiny bit of data (which is a ripoff because others offer the same for $50/month).  There are higher access plan options available that give more data, but you're already at ripoff status.  What's more, the "basic phones" are totally insufficient for any sort of data use.  

Now, let's look at the Smartphone version of this plan.

Notice  the smartphone is $40/month, not $30/month.  Also, you'll notice the data tiers all have unlimited talk and text but varying amounts of data.  A smartphone is simply a device that has a larger screen and can get email.  That's it.   So, Verizon is basically punishing you for having a device capable of using that data, right.  But wait... before I go deeper I want to share the Data Only plans.

Here, we have hotspots, tablets, and home broadband.  As you can see the data tiers are SIGNIFICANTLY less expensive than the smartphone plans on devices that would use way more data than smartphones.  This makes no sense whatsoever.  What these two plans are saying is that you're being forced, whether you truly need it or not, to pay $40/month extra for unlimited talk and text on every plan even if you don't do much talking or texting on your phone.  I find the Data Only plans to be quite reasonable and would happily pay $70-$80/month for 10GB of data, because it's highly unlikely I'd ever exceed that amount AND the single data plan used to give you 5GB of data for $60/month so this is a great deal.  Problem is, Data Only plans prohibit you from having a device capable of doing voice and/or text.

So let's take my situation.  I have two active lines, three lines purposely suspended.  Both are smartphones, one with unlimited data, one with 4GB data (which isn't enough).  Under Verizon's ideal situation, I'd be forced into the following scenario.  Note, my current monthly bill is around $160, and one phone has unlimited data.


Assuming nothing changes, my bill would go up $20 a month even though I lose unlimited data.  Not an ideal option at all.  The argument about "free mobile hotspot" is negated by the fact that if I were to add it on my current plan it would add $20, putting me to $180, and again, I've lost unlimited data.  That's also assuming I don't add any devices on any of my other lines of service, or that Verizon does not treat the suspended lines as "activated devices", because if they do, it then ups to $300/month which is simply ridiculous.  Mobile hotspot from phones don't work nearly as good as standalone hotspot jetpacks, anyway, especially with Windows 8 for some bizarre reason.

So what could Verizon do to make this transition easier?  Simple: Allow smartphones to stay on individual plans BUT allow other lines to take advantage of Data Only Share Everything for secondary devices.  This would then encourage people like myself to consider devices they wouldn't otherwise consider - such as a data-enabled tablet (I can't stand iPads, but would at least consider it if this were an option).  So then let's assume that I were to go with a standalone smartphone, drop two of my suspended lines, swap my second line for a jetpack, and do a tablet on the remaining line - combining the jetpack and tablet on a Data Only plan.

Add to this my current monthly smartphone rate of $60/month and you get $150 - $10/month less than what I'm paying now, but I get way more out of it and my smartphone still has unlimited data for itself to use.  This would be a no-brainer for me.  But Verizon's insistence that you swap all-or-nothing makes it extremely difficult.

I get that they're trying hard to get more families and households on board.  But the reality is that the single professionals are the ones that come to Verizon, and there has to be some consideration for us.  They don't lose much money that they can't otherwise make up in other ways.

TemptingReview of "The Hobbit" (Theatrical Version, Blu-ray)

Wow.  And I don't mean to bore you with details, so I won't.  But there's a lot of ground to cover.

First, some context.  Believe it or not, I never read or was read "The Hobbit", though I own it on audiobook (but I keep falling asleep while it's playing).  I also never bothered to watch any of the "Star Wars" movies (no, none of them).  Therefore, I have no comparison point to the book or Jar Jar Binks which everyone else seems to want to throw this under.  I did watch the extended editions of the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, and I will do some comparatives there.

For those that don't know the book, this has actually little to do with the book itself.  In fact, while it shares the name and the basic premise, there is a lot of fluff thrown in for 'good' measure.  It is important that you approach this movie the way I did: It is essentially a prologue to the Lord of the Rings trilogy, a device to help explain what happened before the "Fellowship of the Ring".  While the book is supposed to be the same, there were a lot of missing elements in the story due to J.R. Tolkien not living long enough to get everything tied up.  His son tried, but this movie is really the first time we see the puzzle pieces fitting together.  The end result is rather confusing, so try best to follow along.

The movie begins with a voiceover from Bilbo Baggins, who is writing what will eventually be "There And Back Again: A Hobbit's Tale", seen at the end of the "Return of the King".  What he is speaking is found in the letter that he has left for Frodo at the end of his adventure.  It then goes to the now infamous starting line from the book: "In a hole in the ground, there lived a hobbit..." and the whole first few sentences.  It then goes to a brief conversation between Bilbo and Frodo (yes, Elijah Wood).  This culminates into a first meeting with Gandalf, and the dwarves who are embarking on an adventure.

I had a number of problems with how this started.  It felt like Jackson was trying desperately to match what was said in the book - down to the corny diatribe from Gandalf to Bilbo - even though none of it matched the character.  Yet, the full duration of the movie is full with blatant attempts to be a prequel to "Lord of the Rings".  As such one would expect somewhat clear personality similarities, especially with Gandalf, that simply aren't there in the first parts of the movie.  Secondly, while I wasn't as upset with the dwarf-at-hobbit-hole scene as other reviewers, I had tons of questions.  Why are they not questioning their being sent there?  Why are they simply trusting of Gandalf that this hobbit is the right person?  And why was Bilbo so eager to join the squad?  Again, from what little I recall from the story, Bilbo is constantly reluctant to go on the adventure the entire time.  Yet in the movie this is brushed off as just a brief hesitation.

Once the real adventure begins, the movie starts a sharp divergence from the story.  It still keeps certain elements but there are many others that were simply patched in from other Tolkien stories such as "The Silmarillion" and "Unfinished Tales".  For example, there isn't a serious session with Saruman and Galadriel with Agent Lord Elrond, with Saruman chewing Gandalf out for making the party (BTW, when Elrond said "purpose", he WAS Agent Smith.  Poor Hugo).  There's no epic battle with Albino orcs.  The list goes on and on, and clearly the intent is to maintain the same level of majesty found in the trilogy, so it's understandable why fans of the book might be miffed at some of what's thrown in, nevermind exposing certain characters that were never in "The Hobbit" to begin with (aka Frodo and others).

The remainder of the movie is wrought with the same amount of orchestral marching scenes panning gorgeous landscapes in New Zealand as are found in the trilogy.  Thinking of this movie in a different angle, you might not expect this since the book itself is quite short and not the epic adventure that the movie portrays it to be; this is precisely why I say that you must set aside that expectation before approaching the movie.  Seen as simply a prequel to the trilogy, everything makes perfect sense and obviously that's how Jackson saw the endeavor.  He wasn't trying to turn the book literally into the movie (though the first 30 minutes would convince you otherwise).

Much has been made of Radagast the Brown.  Turned from a couple of colorful sentences in the book to a larger-than-life character, Radagast's parts could easily have been excluded entirely.  He adds nothing to the story except finding a certain sword that is shown to Saruman (and thus dismissed as unverified).  I didn't have as much issue with how the character was presented with bird droppings in his beard and down the side of his face; indeed, most book-to-movie attempts result in the exact same (see "A Wrinkle in Time" by Disney as a perfect example).  As with the aforementioned, if the target is to appeal to the children that read the book rather than the child that is now an adult watching the movie, sometimes it's better to leave well enough alone.

My TV, an Insignia that I got about 3 years ago at a really good deal, has the ability to closely emulate the 48fps that the movie was presented at in theaters; just not in 3D (I hate 3D).  So I was able to experience the "speed" of things that people were talking about.  The best way I can describe it would be like a play, or a live action event where you are watching things right there on set while they're filming it. It didn't bug me too much since Back to the Future Blu-ray did the same thing at times, but where it got weird is any scene that was filmed with obvious fake props.  The most notable I saw was a scene where they panned over a landscape that was obviously not real; fake trees stuck into fake grass rather than a real area.  Also, when Gandalf is talking to Galadriel, the pillars to her left and right were too fake looking.  Gandalf himself, it was just seeing Ian McKellen in makeup all the time, unlike the trilogy where he blended into the character so well.

If I had to name my biggest complaints, it would be the fight scenes; every last one of them.  They're all the same: party gets stuck into some sort of impossible situation with enemies twice or larger their size.  Even with so many dwarves they still manage to get beat down and either tied up, incapacitated, or stuck.  In every situation except one, Bilbo is the one that saves them.  This is stark opposite of the trilogy where Frodo didn't do hardly anything.  In fact Frodo was more of a coward than Bilbo in the movie even though the book has Bilbo being less willing to chip in and save the day.

Then there is the introduction of Bilbo to Gollum.  A lot of people applaud this as the best scene in the movie, but frankly it was nothing special.  The Gollum character was played well, and the creepy mannerisms are something to behold, but the scene itself was quite unremarkable.

Frankly, it was not a bad movie nor was it too long.  I didn't get the same sense of overall fulfillment from it that I got from Fellowship, nor did I gain much from the Bilbo character here.  Bilbo in the trilogy was a lot more entertaining overall, and "The Hobbit" at times felt mislabeled; as though it should have been called "The Dwarven Quest" because they dominated the screenplay almost exclusively.  This might have been in response to complaints about Frodo and Sam dominating the trilogy; I'm not sure.  In any case, as long as you don't bring book bias the movie is worth a watch.  But don't expect it to blow you away.  It's a decent movie, not a great one.

TemptingReview of "Enigmatis: The Ghosts of Maple Creek"

I have to admit, when I read up on this game, I was under the clearly mistaken impression that it was so short as to not make it worth paying for.  I also had my doubts about the back story of the game; in fact, I still somewhat do if for no other reason than some of the rather haphazard telling of the story, but all in all I walked away satisfied.

Enigmatis is what is referred to as a "hidden object" game.  This genre is somewhat of an evolution of the old point-and-click and text style games of years past, where you'll play out the role of the main character and experience the world through their eyes.  You'll be presented with scenes that have a bunch of irrelevant objects and a select number of key ones that you have to identify.  Depending on the difficulty setting of the game, there may be a time limit, or some sort of punishment for tapping/clicking on the wrong item.  Often, the bulk of what you need to find is not used, but there will be one or two items that are used to advance the story.

In Enigmatis, you wake up in a pool of blood, dazed and confused, having lost your memory.  As the story advances, you will observe items that slowly restore your memory of what has transpired: a young girl has gone missing in the city of Maple Creek, and you've been dispatched to find out what happened to her and bring her home.  Strangely, the town appears mostly abandoned, but you will see various characters reveal themselves at points.  There are twists and turns that will have you wondering where the story is going to go next.  If for nothing else it was a great premise when it started.

My primary issues with Enigmatis were:

1. Not Enough "Creepy".  It started out excellently, dark and mysterious, using ambiance and audio to really bring you into the scene.  There's a part with a dead body and some footprints that will likely make your skin crawl, if for only a brief moment.  Shadows move in the background, catching your eye and tempting you to chase after them.  But then, about midway through the story, you'll trigger a key event involving a bell...and all of a sudden the creep factor is gone.  Shadows show up less, and then it just becomes a point-and-shoot exercise.  It's still a decent story told, but it would have helped a lot to keep up the "creep" factor more than it was.
2. Plot Drop Offs.  This is more about character development than anything.  While the story was pretty straightforward a lot of the story elements were simply abandoned with no further probing.  There's a character who tries to give you all of the collected materials; he then disappears and is never seen or heard from again.  You never find out what happened to him.  There is a church full of cultists (as far as you know) - after triggering the aforementioned bell event, they all run out of the church, never seen or heard from again.  There's a person who rips a photo off of a wall and runs off - you never find out who that person exactly is (their face is shown briefly, but it's difficult to make out who they are).  The ending, which I won't spoil, simply makes no sense whatsoever.
3. Backtrack, backtrack, backtrack.  I actually don't mind a tiny bit of backtracking but this game takes the cake.  It's not even the amount, but how far you have to go and the way you navigate.  For example, you'll find an obscure object in a boathouse that you have to use at the graveyard; the problem is that the path to navigate back to that graveyard is long and tedious.  Once you get there, you'll find an object that needs to be used at a farm; again though, long and tedious to get there since you have to navigate through another building's backyard to get there.  No shortcuts whatsoever to help with any of this journey and there were times I thought of quitting.  Compare this to a game like Adera, where the items you find are used for a future location, with backtracking every now and again, but not all the time.  
4. Hidden Object overload. There are specific places where these minigames occur and they're always the same.  The problem is, when you pass certain key points in the game, you'll have to backtrack (there's that word again) to each of these to see if there's a minigame, and then complete it.  So you'll be visiting each at least 3 times. They're a bit challenging to find certain objects, so if this is your bag then you'll be right at home, but going back to the exact same layouts over and over is not my idea of fun.
5. Pointless highlights.  Things that the game will encourage you to look at that have no useful purpose in the game.  There's a sign near some woods as well as what seems to be an exposed pipe at the top of a toilet.  They draw your eye and distract you needlessly.  You might spend minutes examining these in case they unlock something else, to no avail.
6. Too much dependence on evidence.  To the point that at times, you can't advance the story at all without going to the evidence wall to drag some photos into circles.  I get it; they want you to see things through the eyes of the detective, but to force the user to manually drag things into circles feels like game padding.  Should easily and definitely have just been some cutscenes where you watch the detective do this activity.

All that said, it's a fairly lengthy game.  I was playing in brief spurts for at least a week, so I figure I got roughly 7-8 hours out of the game, which comes in at just under a dollar an hour.  That's of course with me analyzing every corner of the town and not rushing to finish it.  Compared to some first person shooters with a 8 hour campaign at $60 ( over $7 per hour of gameplay!!) I found it to be a decent deal.  That said, this kind of game is a time passer.  It's not something that will go down as a legendary epic or anything.  It'll do, especially if you're on a plane or something passing time.