Recently in Microsoft Category

I'm not going to be upgrading a damn thing to Windows 7. I've actually wiped a couple of XP installs over the past year. I needed the space on the drives, and I wasn't using XP (even though I thought it might be a good idea to "keep my hand in," as it were; my hand wasn't in).

But for those who are using either Windows XP or Vista and who are thinking of upgrading, Microsoft seems to be making it deliberately confusing.

If you're interested, ZDNet's Ed Bott tries to sort it out in an informative post.

As an experiment, I decided to bring my Evolutionary Computing presentation on making the journey into free, open-source software — a slide show originally created in OpenOffice Impress 2.4 — into Google Docs, which happens to have a presentation app in addition to the better-known Docs and Spreadsheets components.

I revised the presentation — taking some things out, adding others and providing some updates on what I'm doing — and output it as a PDF.

Download that PDF for your reading pleasure by clicking on the image above or the link below:

Evolutionary Computing (revised July 2009)

Interesting note: I believe that no previous entry on this blog has been filed under so many categories. (And I've been considering dumping Categories entirely and just using tags ...)

Dell may not have the absolute best laptop deals available — you can often do better with the HP/Compaq/Acer/Gateway specials in Office Depot's Sunday newspaper circular (see, there IS a reason to subscribe to a genuine dead-tree newspaper like our own ever-lovin' Los Angeles Daily News).

But Dell is trying to earn your business, and right now (and through April 2) the company is running a "9 great systems under $499" laptop promotion.

True, the $399 Inspiron 13 is no great shakes specs-wise, with a measly 2.13 GHz single-core Celeron processor. But it does feature 1 GB of RAM (barely adequate for the included Windows Vista but quite enough for Linux distributions such as Ubuntu) and a fairly roomy 160 GB hard drive. A 2 GHz Core 2 Duo processor adds $100 to the price, and an extra gigabyte of RAM adds another $50 (yes, Dell SHOULD be ashamed to charge $50 for something that couldn't be costing them more than $10 wholesale), and for $550 you have a very respectable laptop that should serve you for at least three years (or 7-10 years if you're me).

What I'm much more excited about is Dell's Inspiron Mini 9 netbook (pictured above), the price of which has dropped to $249 for the basic Ubuntu Linux/512 MB RAM/8 GB solid-state drive model.

I had the pleasure of trying this very-small but quite usable netbook at the San Fernando Valley Linux Users Group booth at the recent SCALE 7x show, and I was quite impressed with it. I've seen quite a few ultra-small netbooks over the past couple of years -- the Asus Eee PC, the Everex Cloudbook, the HP 2133 Mini-Note, and this Dell is the best one I've encountered yet.

The smallish keyboard, while not super comfortable, is definitely usable, and unlike some other netbooks, the Dell Mini 9 doesn't run hot. It has a nice display and is fairly snappy with Ubuntu GNU/Linux 8.04 (the long-term support edition I'm using on the little girl's Gateway laptop and my extra Toshiba 1100-S101). It handled multimedia well when I saw it, and the small size makes it extremely convenient. It's easier to tuck it in a bag or backpack and open it up at will.

Battery life is supposed to be 4 hours. Not bad, but the talk recently of basing the netxt generation of netbooks on power-sipping ARM processors, like those used in cellphones,
and promising all-day battery life, is something to look forward to.

Anyhow, while the base Dell Mini 9 is $249, bringing the memory up to 1 GB adds only $25 to the cost. (Now you're talking, Dell ...) Going from the 8 GB solid-state hard drive to 16 GB adds an extra $50, but that isn't completely necessary (although I'd probably do it) because you can easily save to those miniature SD cards used in digital cameras — most netbooks have a slot for this — and keep your main drive fairly clean.

One catch with netbooks is that they don't have built-in CD/DVD drives, so you can pop for one from Dell for $89, or take your chances and pick one up for possibly less at Fry's or online from an outlet like TigerDirect.com, where USB-connected CD/DVD burners run from $60-80, or not much of a savings.

Again, if you fully embrace the "netbook concept," you won't need an optical drive or a even a huge main hard drive. These little notebooks are supposed to be for casual Web surfing, jotting down notes and the like.

But I still predict that the netbook will become a whole lot more ubiquitous than many hardware manufacturers and especially software giant Microsoft ever thought.

And while Microsoft is making moves to have an operating system other than Windows XP that will run on such lower-spec devices, I think it's just silently waiting and not-so-silently cajoling hardware makers to up the specs of these little laptops so they can more comfortably run not Windows Vista but the upcoming (and said-to-be-lighter-and-higher) Windows 7.

We'll see. The rumors of a shift from Intel-based processors like the netbook-aimed Atom to even-lower-power-using ARM CPUs could throw a considerable wrench into Microsoft's quest to move into the netbook market — a class of hardware the company didn't see coming.

Right now I still recommend running Ubuntu on those netbooks that ship with that version of the Linux operating system. I've heard less-than-glowing things about the netbooks that use modified versions of Xandros and Linpus, but I'll admit right now that I have nothing beyond the anecdotal to go by.

There are many people interested in running everything from Mandriva and Debian to OpenBSD and Novell's SUSE (either the OpenSUSE or SLED varieties) on their netbooks with the help in many cases of active projects porting these OSes to various netbooks.

Maybe you don't want a netbooks. I understand. I do a whole lot of writing on laptops, and that smallish keyboard might not get such a glowing review when I'm cranking 500-word articles on deadline.

But then again, I do the majority of my work on a 7-year-old Toshiba laptop with a dead sound chip and the ultra-reliable OpenBSD operating system, now equipped with Java and Flash Player 7 (the "newest" Flash player available in the BSD world). Right now the Toshiba — with 1.2 GHz Celeron CPU, 768 MB of RAM and 20 GB hard drive split between OpenBSD and Windows XP, which for testing reasons I haven't killed out — is serving me quite well.

And I always have the Toshiba's "twin," running Ubuntu 8.04, at the ready. And that one even has working sound (and with Ubuntu I have Java and either Flash 9 or 10 – I can't remember). If I have to do more with video than currently (now = almost none), I'll have to move back to Linux both for the Flash capability and the availability of more video-editing software.

But for the basics — Firefox, Opera, Thunderbird, OpenOffice, the Geany text editor, the Xpdf and Adobe PDF readers, the GIMP image editor, Pidgin for IM, gFTP and the Rox-filer file manager — I have a pretty nice setup in OpenBSD. I've been using this OS on this hunk of hardware for about three months now, so I should be in a position soon to write yet another distro review, except this one will be based on that three months of use and not the "I installed it, here's how that went, and here's how it's different from what I usually run" reviews that I and many others find so easy to crank out.

Winding back around to netbooks, what I mean to say is that $250 is a better price than $300 for the basic model, and for that Dell deserves at least some praise (and more than a little business).

ZDNet's new Community, Incorporated blog (written by recently minted OpenSuse community manager Joe "Zonker" Brockmeier) links to a CNet post about Microsoft applying for a patent on something called metered computing.

The idea is that Microsoft will sell you a really cheap, subsidized PC and then charge you continually for its use. And yes, MS points out in the application that a user could very well pay more in fees than the PC is worth.

From CNet:

Microsoft's patent application does acknowledge that a per-use model of computing would probably increase the cost of ownership over the PC's lifetime. The company argues in its application, however, that "the payments can be deferred and the user can extend the useful life of the computer beyond that of the one-time purchase machine."

The document suggests that "both users and suppliers benefit from this new business model" because "the user is able to migrate the performance level of the computer as needs change over time, while the supplier can develop a revenue stream business that may actually have higher value than the one-time purchase model currently practiced."

"Rather than suffering through less-than-adequate performance for a significant portion of the life of a computer, a user can increase performance level over time, at a slight premium of payments," the application reads. "When the performance level finally reaches its maximum and still better performance is required, then the user may upgrade to a new computer, running at a relatively low performance level, probably with little or no change in the cost of use."

And what if you don't pay up? According to the patent application, there would be a mechanism to turn off your computing faucet.

Remember, this is all speculation; it's just a patent application. But if MS is trying to patent this idea, chances are they're seriously considering implementing it.

Gives new meaning to the term "Microsoft tax," does it not?

If Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer were to make a Windows commercial, it would be very much unlike those "crafted" by Bill Gates and Jerry Seinfeld.

In fact, Ballmer has already done this. Watch the above video, if you dare.

And don't think that Seinfeld hasn't done TV ad duty for Apple as well (look for him at the end of this "genius" ad; I think it's a legit ad and not something put together by Apple fanboys to make a point, but I can't be 100 percent sure ... and I really don't know how Seinfeld fits in with Gandhi and Picasso):

It never occurred to me, but Microsoft buying eBay is something that could really happen.

Via ZDNet's Between the Lines blog:

Microsoft has $44 billion or so burning a hole in its pocket, but there's one little hitch: There are few companies that the software giant could buy to get scale quickly. Enter eBay. Enter speculation. Enter eBay as the acquisition target.

What makes it work? The ability to spin off PayPal and/or Skype to pay for the damn thing.

Question: What's the reserve on this auction?

Bill Gates is talking about using Microsoft technology to end the tyranny — TYRANNY, I TELL YOU — of ... telephone numbers.

I ripped this Gates quote from the ZDNet blog items linked above:

"Right now the mobile phone, the desktop phone, the e-mail that you have on the PC, or instant messaging, these are all very different things, and the issues about how much of your information or your schedule, your current activity you share with people who communicate with you is not well designed.... By bringing together all of these kinds of communication, we can greatly simplify them. We can get rid of phone numbers, have it so when you say you want to contact someone, based on who you are and where that person is, they can decide whether to take the call or take a message about that, and so a great efficiency improvement that can be made there."

It's all part of a product called Echoes that uses Windows Live Messenger to somehow synchronize contacts across mobile platforms.

I can't say I understand a damn thing about it, so I won't.

To clear up that understanding, here's another ZDNet item from Microsoft-focused Mary Jo Foley:

Phase 1 of Echoes will provide carriers with a variety of services, ranging from a common network address book, to SMS in/out messaging, simultaneous ringing, click-to-call, single-sign on and more.

I need a visual ...

Even though the driver situation and the need for 2 GB+ of RAM in order to run Windows Vista and not want to kill yourself is getting to be old news, most of the bloggers out there are writing about what the next Windows OS — now called the very-catchy "Windows 7" — has in store for us.

Expert Microsoft-watcher Mary Jo Foley opens up her rumor bag and spills it, with the following catching my eye:

• Windows 7 is being designed around five pillars (The five, as reported by AeroXP: specialized for laptops; designed for services; personalized for everyone; optimized for entertainment; engineered for "ease of ownership")
• Windows 7 will be more modularized and componentized than Vista or other previous Windows releases. Microsoft hasn't said whether it will allow users/PC makers to opt into (and out of) installing subsystems, the same way that Windows Server 2008 users can choose specific "roles," but hints that Microsoft is considering this approach for Windows 7 abound. Microsoft officials have discussed their work on "MinWin," a streamlined version of the Windows core. But MinWin may or may not be won't be part of Windows 7. (Update: Months after bloggers and reporters first discussed MinWin, Microsoft finally said MinWin won't be part of Windows 7, via the Sinofsky Q&A on News.com on May 27.)
• Windows 7 will be a minor update to Vista -- with "minor," here, meaning as less disruptive as possible to users and their applications. Microsoft has said Windows 7 will use the same driver model that Vista did.
• Windows 7 will allow users to run legacy applications in virtualized mode to minimize backward compatibility problems. Whether Microsoft will deliver this virtualization via an application-virtualization solution like SoftGrid, the new Kidaro enterprise virtualization product or in some other way is not yet known.
• Windows 7 will add native support for Virtual Hard Disks (VHDs) -- a feature Microsoft already provides in Vista, in the form of Complete PC Backup (in the Business version of Vista).

In other words, not too exciting. Oh, and it's scheduled for release in 2010. So expect another couple of years of ... not much out of Microsoft.

I think the problem for MS has been the growing length of time between major releases (with thanks to Wikipedia for the info):

Windows 95 Released Aug. 1995
Windows 98 Released June 1998
Windows 98se Released May 1999
Windows 2000 Released Feb. 2000
Windows Me Released Sept. 2000
Windows XP Released Oct. 2001
Windows Vista Released Nov. 2006

So the five years between Windows XP -- after the leap from 98 to 2000 took less than two years -- had the effect of a) making XP more established than any previous incarnation of Windows, engendering "just works" or "works as well as can be expected" loyalty and building up a volume of compatible applications unequaled previously and b) not making people happy about upgrading hardware for the diminishing returns of a new, unproven, buggy and driver-poor OS.

And we all know that Windows and its success is about one thing -- and one thing only: drivers and the hardware compatibility they bring to the system.

So after a five-year drought in new OS releases, Microsoft had to hit one out of the damn ballpark, not a feeble grounder up the first-base line.

Just look at what Apple adds to OS X every year and then some. Hell, look at the leap from the "Classic" Mac OS to the Unix-based OS X. And look at how far Linux has come on the desktop in the past three or so years. If all you do with your PC is browse the Web and churn out a few documents and spreadsheets, you don't need Microsoft, or Windows or Office.

It's easy to catch your competition if they're standing still.

People need passion, excitement, new (ahem) vistas -- in short, compelling reasons to upgrade. And I don't see anything like that. "Touch functionality" is intriguing, but that's not a game-winner, and greater interoperability with mobile devices is a given, no more.

The increasing importance of OS integration with computing in the cloud is something that MS is no doubt working on, but any move to the cloud makes traditional applications and operating systems less relevant, so I can't see MS going wholeheartedly in that direction.

So where's the passion? Where's the compulsion to stick with Microsoft? If anybody knows, please tell me.

Of all the theories behind Microsoft's assimilation of Yahoo (I think it's about eliminating a competitor under a mountain of cash), this is the most intriguing I've seen yet: According to Linux-Watch, Microsoft wants Yahoo because no huge Web-based companies use Windows products to run their back-end ... except Microsoft, of course, and this might give the rest of the world a reason to consider Windows for their servers ... or it could crush Yahoo under the weight of a soul-sucking software sea change. ("Sea change" ... that's as idiotic as "change agent" and "best practices" ... sorry for using it ...).

Here's some of the editorial:

There's no way on God's earth that Microsoft can switch all of Yahoo's services to being based on Windows. The IT costs and the time needed to migrate Yahoo's applications to Windows boggles my mind. It would probably cost more than whatever Microsoft ends up paying for Yahoo.

Of course, Microsoft could replace Yahoo's applications with Windows-powered applications, but if they were to do that I think they'd lose all of Yahoo's customers. Ballmer would be better off dumping Microsoft's billions into the Pacific than making that move.

So, what I see happening is Microsoft continuing to let Yahoo run its software its way, and slowly, ever so slowly, trying to use the Yahoo brand to tempt customers into using new Windows Live applications. I don't see it working. While Microsoft wastes time and money trying to catch up with the Google applications of 2008, Google will be continuing to set the technology bar even higher.

One thing I do believe -- it's a win-win for Microsoft and lose-lose for Yahoo.

Google didn't get where it is today by charging end users for software and charging them again and again for endless upgrades.

Back in the early Macintosh days (i.e. the mid- to late '80s), Apple used the OS to sell hardware. Upgrades were free.

Today, Apple sells music at 99 cents a track, but what they're really selling is iPods, iPhones, iMacs, and any other damn thing they can slap an "i" in front of. And while the music is available in 99-cent increments, the iTunes software -- which runs in Windows and OS X -- has always been free. iPods would've never gotten to be such a huge business in any other way.

It's no different for the OS.

With that in mind, Apple wins on the desktop -- and crushes Microsoft -- in one way:

Make OS X free -- or very cheap. And make it run on Windows-compatible PCs.

Everybody wants that new MacBook Air. They'll still want it, even if they can also run OS X on a crappy PC. While not getting $129 for each OS X upgrade, Apple would get market share, still move a whole lot of hardaware. And they would gain that all-important "mindshare."

Most people have heard of Linux, but few have seen it on the desktop, even though they "use" it every day when they browse the Web. Most have seen OS X, a significant portion have used it a bit, and a few are rabid fans.

And while I'd like to see OS X go free and open-source, I won't hold my breath on that one. As I said above, I'd prefer -- at a minimum -- that Apple port OS X to Windows PCs, i.e. make a native version that installs from CD and runs on non-Apple hardware.

But even making new versions of OS X free for Apple hardware would prompt more users to upgrade the software. When running the latest and greatest gets slow, they'd be more inclined to buy new hardware, most likely from Apple.

Right now I'm still running my 2003-era iBook on OS X 10.3. I saved $129 twice by not upgrading to 10.4 and 10.5. I can't even use Apple's newest Safari browser because it doesn't run on 10.3. Firefox does, so that's what I use. As a result, Apple misses out on any browser-generated ad revenue. Would 10.5 run well on my laptop? Who knows? I sure don't want to spend $129 to find out.

By flooding the market with a free or very cheap OS X, Apple could blunt the effects of Microsoft Windows, which customers pay for but don't really feel they're paying for because the cost is bundled into just about every PC sold.

Even if a free OS wouldn't fly at Apple HQ, if the company still ported OS X to Windows-compatible PCs, they could -- and should -- compete with Microsoft when it comes to pre-installed operating systems on non-Apple hardware.

Imagine if you could order a PC from Dell with Windows, Linux or OS X ... there would be real competition for the hearts and minds of computer users everywhere from the home to the enterprise.

And since Apple's hardware is so ultra-cool (and ultra-pricey), they'd probably sell even more of it if OS X had a much larger of the overall worldwide OS pie.

I just found out about Scribefire blogging program here, and I can't wait to try it. Problem: The Web site doesn't do a good job of even explaining what Scribefire is and what it does. Microsoft does an equally poor job of describing Windows Live Spaces. If I can't easily get a grasp on what your application is even about, is it me, or is it you?

Sure it ran in RedmondMag, the "independent voice of the Microsoft IT community," but Google's Secret Weapon by Glyn Moody lays out very clear how and why Google is leveraging open-source software -- and the people who make it -- in its battle against Microsoft. While I've heard much of it before, it's still the best thing I've read all week.

I'm using Windows Media Player -- and make no mistake, my opinion of the application itself is much higher than most others have of it -- and I get a message that an upgrade is available. Now remember, I'm IN THE MIDDLE OF USING THE ACTUAL APPLICATION. Being a Linux user mostly, I forget that Windows makes you reboot about 90 percent of the time when updates are done.

The download takes seconds, but it's about 20 minutes before everything is unpacked and installed.

Then I'm informed that I have to reboot for changes to take effect, and would I like to reboot now?

And no, I CAN'T EVEN USE WINDOWS MEDIA PLAYER UNTIL I REBOOT. I would just abandon the whole thing, but I only started Windows Media Player because I agreed to help someone burn a couple copies of an audio CD.

No, I WOULD NOT LIKE TO REBOOT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I have about 20 windows open right now and prefer to reboot WHEN I WANT, and I would appreciate you TELLING ME BEFORE I AGREE TO AN UPDATE THAT I WILL HAVE TO REBOOT TO MAKE IT TAKE EFFECT.

So I write about four blog entries because I have the links open in about 20 Firefox tabs, then I methodically close everything, log out of Pidgin, log out of our Unisys newspaper publishing system, reboot ... AND THEN I HAVE TO SIGN ANOTHER DRACONIAN MICROSOFT SOFTWARE AGREEMENT. I didn't do the default configuration (NEVER do the default configuration ... that's my tip of the day), and eventually got to a screen on which I could choose the media types that Windows Media Player would handle. As I said above, I actually like using Windows Media Player when I'm using Windows, so I'm happy to have it handle pretty much damn near everything. I found it interesting that Windows Media Player is now equipped to handle FLAC and OGG files -- the free, open-source alternatives to MP3, WMA, AAC and all the other proprietary crap that operating-system makers are supposed to pay royalties for including in their software. But the option to play FLAC and OGG is NOT checked by default. You have to manually check all the boxes -- yep, I did it -- so now I should have less trouble playing OGG and FLAC files.

Note: I could already play OGG files in WMP since I had previously downloaded a codec that made it possible, but it's nice to see Microsoft acknowledging that these open-source alternatives exist and supporting their use.

But making me close dozens of tabs and windows in the middle of a workday just to get a freakin' Windows Media Player update? In the end, Redmond, you wound me.

The magazine Popular Science and Popsci.com have released their annual list of The Worst Jobs in Science for 2007.

It is worth mentioning that working for Microsoft as a security team member is ranked sixth in the list, just slightly better than Whale-Feces Researcher or Forensic Entomologist.

The bottom-10:

Number 10: Whale-Feces Researcher
They scoop up whale dung, then dig through it for clues

Number 9: Forensic Entomologist
Solving murders by studying maggots

Number 8: Olympic Drug Tester
When your job is drug testing the world’s top athletes, there’s no way to win

Number 7: Gravity Research Subject
They’re strapped down so astronauts can blast off

Number 6: Microsoft Security Grunt
Like wearing a big sign that reads “Hack Me”

Number 5: Coursework Carcass Preparer
They kill, pickle, and bottle the critters that schoolkids cut up

Number 4: Garbologist
Think Indiana Jones— in a Dumpster

Number 3: Elephant Vasectomist
When your patient is Earth’s largest land animal, sterilization is a big job

Number 2: Oceanographer
Nothing but bad news, day in and day out

Number 1: Hazmat Diver
They swim in sewage. Enough said.

Microsoft Corp. launched Tuesday its "Windows Live Folders" service, which will give computer users up to 500 megabytes of online storage space. Microsoft made the service available to 5,000 users on Tuesday night but plans to make the service widely available later in the summer.

Microsoft's move is in direct response to the unlimited space service offered by Yahoo! Mail, the 5 gigabytes offered by AOL and the nearly 3 gigabytes offered by Google's Gmail.