Quick! What’s the difference between this video card…

…and this video card?

Did you guess that the first video card had 128 MB more memory than the second?

Bzz. Nope. They’re the same video card in the same Dell machine! Wait… maybe Vista ate the 128 MB of memory? Nope! That’s not it either!

Here’s another question – how much memory do you think the video card in this screenshot from Dell’s website – the one labeled “256MB nVidia Geforce 7300LE TurboCache” – has?

Did you guess 256 MB? Well, if so – you made the same mistake I did. Except I made it twice.

Here, let me explain to you how much memory this 256 MB video card has. We’ll use Dell’s help page, linked off of Help Me Choose:

That still says that it’s a “256MB x16 nVidia GeForce 7300 LE TurboCache” card. Let’s scroll down a little…

Nothing there… let’s scroll down some more….

Ah hah! There it is!

Don’t see it?

Here it is called out:

Of course! The “256MB x16 nVidia GeForce 7300 LE TurboCache” entry had a footnote which explains how much memory there’s actually on the video card – which is 128MB!

It turns out that ATI has HyperMemory, and nVidia has TurboCache. Here’s how ATI describes this technology:

ATI develops HyperMemory technology to reduce PC costs

Yep, I think that says it all. So the Dell I bought in July, thinking it had a 256 MB ATI X600 HyperMemory video card so that it would be great for Vista, actually only has 128 MB onboard (apparently the driver tricks XP), and the Dell I just instructed my parents to buy so that they could enjoy Vista Ultimate has a 256 MB nVidia TurboCache video card, which actually only has 128 MB onboard.

I’m not sure if I should be angry at Dell or not. After all, I guess I should’ve known to follow all the footnotes and do research on what these buzzwords really meant. As a customer, I should’ve known better and have been more wary and distrustful of the marketing and help page.

Caveat emptor indeed.

Many companies offer an Employee Stock Purchasing Plan, which enables employees to buy shares of the company’s stock at a discounted price per some defined period. The employee can then sell the shares, or hold on to them.

Unfortunately, it appears to me that TurboTax 2006 doesn’t do the expected thing in certain cases when the ESPP shares are sold. (To be clear, this problem might be bigger, but I only found this in ESPP.)

Short version: If you have a stock transaction that results in $0.00 capital gains/losses, TurboTax may not document this on your Schedule D. However, the IRS will match your Schedule D against your 1099-B and this may raise warning flags.

Let’s say you work for DeCheung Light Industries, Inc. (symbol DCHG) and your company offers a 15% discount. You get your ESPP shares in 2002, and you sell them in 2006. Here’s a hypothetical calculation using made up numbers:

In this example, the End Price is lower than the Begin Price, and the Sales Price was Lower than the End Price. It is also a qualifying sale. As a result, you would have Ordinary Income of $221, and $0.00 in capital gains/losses.

It looks like TurboTax correctly enters the $221 of Ordinary Income, but then neglects to enter this transaction at all onto the Schedule D. However, if you call the IRS, they will tell you that even if there are no capital gains/losses you should document it on the Schedule D since they compare it to the 1099-B.

So… long story short: make sure all transactions on your 1099-B show up in the Schedule D.

By the way, it looks like this bug occurs in TurboTax 2005. You can probably guess the inspiration for this post.

If you think I’ve made a mistake in this, please let me know.

On 1/24/2007, I placed an order to have flowers delivered on 2/14/2007. You know… Valentine’s Day.

On 2/13/2007, they delivered the flowers. You know… not on Valentine’s Day.

On 2/13/2007, I sent them a complaint e-mail about my order using their webform.

On 2/15/2007, I get this automatic reply from them:

Thank you for the feedback. We are always happy to hear from you and address
any questions or concerns you may have.

Once reviewed, we will pass your comments to the appropriate staff member
or department. If there are questions, we will contact you at the email address provided.

Thank you for shopping with FTD.COM.

Sincerely,
FTD.COM Customer Service
http://custserv.ftd.com

On 3/4/2007, I get this final reply from them:

We’re sorry that your experience was less than satisfactory. FTD.COM strives
to provide you with the very finest service. Let us assure you that your
experience is not typical, and that all your future orders will be filled with
the special care and attention that they deserve.

Thank you for shopping with FTD.COM.

Sincerely,
FRANCESCA
http://custserv.ftd.com

It took 19 days to send that to me? I am not impressed.

Maybe it’s time to look into 800-Flowers.

I picked up my car today… and just in time the WSJ has article about why front/rear collisions are so expensive!

Bumper Shock: Today’s Design Can Dent the Wallet – WSJ.com
Evolution of the car bumper in the past 35 years has meant that formerly one-piece steel bumpers are now integrated into the vehicle’s front-end design. This happened in part because new rules don’t require bumpers to be as strong and protective. That means consumers wind up paying thousands of dollars to fix damage from even a minor collision. The total repair cost for damage from four impact tests — on each car’s front and rear bumpers and front and rear corners — ranged from $4,277 for the Mitsubishi Motors Corp. Galant to $9,051 for the Nissan Motor Co. Maxima.

The damage costs show how bumper design has slipped over time as manufacturers focused more on protecting passengers in high-speed crashes. Easing standards has allowed auto makers more flexibility in designing vehicles for aesthetic appeal. For comparison, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, a research group funded by the insurance industry, tested a 1981 Ford Motor Co. Escort with the new cars. The Escort, which was built during the height of strict federal regulations, has large, wide bumpers and sustained no damage in the corner tests. After the four tests its damage totaled $469. The car’s bumpers contribute to its overall clunky styling and its performance in high-speed crashes would probably be unacceptable by modern standards.

[snip]

The Nissan Maxima, Pontiac G6 and Volkswagen Passat each sustained damage estimated at more than $4,500 in the frontal test. These cars have bumpers that slid underneath the barrier, allowing their bodies to absorb much of the impact. The costs reflect damage to the cars’ hoods, fenders, headlights and even air conditioning condensers mounted just behind their front grilles.

That sounds like exactly what happened to me – except that I have xenon head lamps which added an additional $1600 to the repairs. Buyer beware!

So here’s what my car looked like on 1/24/2007:

And here’s what it looks like 1+ month later:

(Sharp eyed readers may notice a small mistake that was made – but I’m fine with it.)

In some ways I miss the Volvo S40 I drove for a month. The seat was much more comfortable (especially the headrest!), the brake pedal was a bit more sensitive (almost too sensitive), and the trunk was actually slightly bigger (it was a lot longer) – but at the end of the day, Rear Wheel Drive just drives better than Front Wheel Drive.