Recently in Windows Category

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.

Rick Coca of the Daily News had a story on the cover today concerning an FBI warning about hackers who set up their own WiFi router with the same SSID name as the public WiFi router you wish to connect to, with the purpose being to steal vital passwords and other information during your wireless Internet session.

While the article was short and didn't go very deep into the security issues surrounding WiFi and Internet networking in general, and laptop computers in particular, users of WiFi in general and public WiFi in particular need to be aware of what they should and shouldn't do.

The article did say that it's a good idea to have your computer configured to CHOOSE the WiFi router to which you wish to connect, because the consequences could be, for lack of a better word, bad:

Once in, a hacker can steal passwords and credit-card information and install viruses, worms and other malware — malicious software — on a computer that can spread to other systems you run.

(FBI cybercrimes supervisor Bryan) Duchene recommends that Wi-Fi users change their settings so they have to manually input the Service Set Identifier (SSID) they want to log on to.

While free-access seekers spawned the "wardriving" phenomenon — Wi-Fi users drove around with GPS systems and Wi-Fi-seeking laptops, marking locations of unsecured, free Wi-Fi sites — that practice eventually piqued the interest of criminals, Duchene said.

While WiFi does increase the risk of "bad" things happening, and the lack of encryption on almost all public WiFi connections doesn't help matters, I'm pretty confident in saying that if you are entering logins, passwords and other "sensitive" information over a secure connection — one with https:// in the Web address instead of just plain http:// — you are pretty safe, even over public WiFi.

But in cases where your login or password is NOT sent via a secure, encrypted connection, or for regular Web browsing on non-secure connection, it's quite possible that others can see what you're doing on the Internet.

That may bother you, or it may not.

But especially when it comes to e-mail, make sure you are using a secure, encrypted connection, either through a Web-browser interface, or via the settings in your e-mail client, be it Microsoft Outlook, Mozilla Thunderbird, the Apple Mail program or whatever else you're running.

The worst thing you can do is send sensitive information -- or any personal or private information -- via unencrypted e-mail over an unencrypted WiFi connection. That's just too much of a risk.

I've often said that I wish all Internet traffic — e-mail, Web browsing, file transfers, etc. — took place over secure connections. I think we're headed in that direction.

So here's my quick guide on what to do and not do over a public WiFi connection:

E-mail: Only read and send e-mail via a secure encrypted connection. That means if you're using a Web interface, make sure the ENTIRE session, from login and password to composing and sending the e-mail and logging out -- takes place in a secure environment with the https:// in the address box.

For Gmail, you can choose a secure connection with https://gmail.com ... BUT the last time I read about it, your Google login and password is stored as a cookie on your computer for easy access, and it can be easily stolen over a public WiFi connection.

For Yahoo! Mail, your login and password is entered in a secure environment, but the rest of your e-mail session is unencrypted, so don't use Yahoo! Mail over a public WiFi connection.

If you have an office-provided e-mail service via a Web browser, look for the https:// instead of http:// and ask your system administrator about whether your connection is secure the whole way through.

If you use an e-mail client like Outlook or Thunderbird, make sure your e-mail server allows secure connections -- and make sure your client software is set up properly to use it.

There are e-mail services that offer more security. For the extremely paranoid, there's HushMail, but my favorite is Fastmail.fm. Just make sure you use the secure version. I'll also put in a plug for my ISP, DSL Extreme, which offers Web-accessible e-mail in a completely secure session.

Antivirus, antispyware, firewall protection: Whatever you do, and especially if you're using Microsoft Windows, make sure you have up-to-date antivirus and firewall programs. This excellent though aging Washington Post page has links to many vendors of these programs, some of which are available free. For the PC, I prefer Avast. Avast also runs on Linux, although with that operating system you're only likely to pass along a virus, because almost all malicious code is aimed at Windows computers, which are much easier targets.

Web: For Web browsing, if you are on an unsecured connection, it's easy for snoops to figure out the URLs of the Web pages you're visiting. And from there those snoops can see what's on those pages, too.

While it's not conducive to privacy, this might not be a problem, depending on where you're browsing.

But ... if you're entering any logins, passwords or other sensitive information, make sure you're on a secure connection before beginning. AND make sure your computer is NOT set up for file sharing.

To be more clear, if your computer is free of malicious software -- key-loggers that record every keystroke, spyware, etc. -- an encrypted connection should give you enough security over WiFi.

IM is a problem: Most instant-messaging traffic is unencrypted, so don't IM anything you don't want others to potentially see. The last time I checked, Yahoo! Instant Messenger, AOL's AIM and Microsoft's MSN Messenger are all unencrypted.

And do yourself a favor: NEVER, EVER, EVER NEVER, install any kind of software from an untrusted source, over WiFi or a wired Internet connection. That's when the bad stuff happens -- when malicious software makes its way onto your computer. It's easier by orders of magnitude to attack from the inside than from the outside.

WiFi at home and work: Wireless routers that you control at your home or workplace can be set up for encrypted connections only. Don't use WEP encryption because it can be easily cracked. Instead, use WPA or WPA2, which are much, much more secure and robust.

And like it says in the Daily News article, make sure you change the SSID name of your router to something other than the default (usually something like Linksys, Netgear, or the name of whatever company made the router), and also make sure you have your computers set to only connect with YOUR router.

For more on this subject, here are a few links:

• USA Today's Complete Guide to Wi-Fi Security (make sure you read ALL the pages)
• Ask Metafilter discussion on encrypted WiFi
• Coffeeshop WiFi for Dummies
• Using Public Wireless Networks More Safely (from Microsoft)

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've been changing text editors in Windows like some people change underwear -- clean people that is.

And every time I try a new one, I open a text file and choose the new application. Windows remembers what I chose the last time, and that is presented as the first choice when I open a new text file. I've gone from EdiPad Lite to Geany to Notepad++, and I appreciate Windows remembering the last text editor I've used. I get the same treatment with .doc files, which I sometimes open with OpenOffice but usually go quick-and-dirty with AbiWord.

Anyhow, it's a nice feature in Windows, this remembering the last app I used in a given category. Nice to hear me say something nice about Windows, don't you think?

Whether Windows Vista is a success, failure, bump in the road or GUI revolution -- and the answer varies depending on who you talk to -- those who keep an eye on Microsoft are already abuzz about the next Windows OS release, which is now going by the name Windows 7.

As the link above might already be telling you, I think ZDNet's Mary Jo Foley does very well when it comes to reporting on Microsoft, and she has this to say:

Because Microsoft won’t talk about Windows 7, I can’t quote any Microsoft representatives on what they are planning, thinking and hoping regarding Windows 7.

My opinion? The Softies want Windows 7 to be the anti-Vista. That is not a put-down of Vista, which may not be selling at two times the rate XP did — but which still is selling strongly enough to boost Microsoft’s Q2 FY 2008 client-division revenues by more almost 70 percent.

But Microsoft’s brass do want to avoid a lot of the pitfalls that it encountered with Windows Vista — and who can blame them? They want Windows 7 to be on-time, not polluted by feature-bloat and not overly ambitious. They want the Windows 7 betas to be near-feature-complete the first time that the majority of testers get builds. And most of all, they want Windows 7 to be a predictable, familiar, relatively minor upgrade. Should that take four years (counting from the fall 2006 Vista release-to-manufacturing date) to Microsoft’s stated 2010 Windows 7 ship target to deliver? Probably not; Windows 7 in 2009 looks like a realistic possibility.

So if you love or hate Vista ... a 2009 release of a whole new version of Windows will make today's edition of the OS seem pretty bump-in-the-roadish. ... and a full year from now the hardware will be that much better (quad-core everything, 3 GB standard in laptops, more in desktops ... ) that a release from Microsoft that doesn't further task computing resources would be mighty welcome by Windows users, both home and corporate.

More from Mary Jo:

... Microsoft is in a tricky spot. Apple can put consumers front and center when it designs a new operating system. But Microsoft needs to strike a balance between creating an operating system that appeals to both business users and consumers. If Microsoft only had to appease business users with Windows 7, a minor, no frills point-release update would be perfect. But it also has to fend off Mac OS X with Windows 7 on the retail front.

Another writer I respect, Microsoft-Watch's Joe Wilcox, things all this Windows 7 talk is too much hype:

Microsoft hasn't yet released Windows Vista Service Pack 1, and there are so-called leaks galore about Vista successor Windows Seven. There have been supposed screenshots of Milestone 1 and even a pirated movie-like video. I won't link to any of the stuff, as it would only feed the frenzy.

But he does offer this:

The real work on Windows Seven isn't the shell but the kernel. It's my understanding that the primary Windows Seven development focus, at least for now, is the operating system's plumbing. That's absolutely the right priority, and it is a huge departure from Windows XP and Vista development. Seven's predecessors got wish-listed to death. Previously, the early process was more about compiling huge lists of features the people inside and outside Microsoft wanted in the operating system.

And Wilcox provides a link to his own story about the Shipping Seven blog, presumably by an anonymous Microsoftie, which can be found here.

Having taken a look, Shipping Seven is a pretty good blog, with tips on using Windows now, plus a good bit of opinion. Wilcox smells guerrilla marketing from Microsoft, and I'm inclined to agree.

I'm not saying I'm gonna stick with Geany in Windows, even though I've had nothing but praise for it as a Linux application. I'm not crazy about the paragraph I'm working on going from a white background to gray (and I haven't figured out how to turn this "feature" off), nor am I crazy about the cursor disappearing at times when I scroll down and it's a the far left of the screen ...

But I did figure out the solution to one of my problems:

When I copied and pasted my text from Geany into whatever Web program I'm prepping it for, I ended up with extra lines. I fixed it by going under Document -- Set Line Endings and switching from Convert and Set to CR/LF (Win) to Convert and set to LF (Unix).

(Note: Having to do this for EVERY file is a pain in the ass. Why can't I just set it and forget it?)

I also noticed that Geany -- mainly a text editor for programmers -- has a couple of features that might be useful: Under Tools -- Export, you can choose to output text as HTML or LaTex (the latter being useful for Linux/Unix typesetting but the former being useful for just about everything I do).

Ubuntu 6.06 LTS -- the distribution's first "long term support" release -- now has a new installer that incorporates some 600 bug and security fixes and makes installation easier, especially on servers.

It's no secret that Canonical, the company that runs Ubuntu, is making a big play both for the desktop and more-lucrative server markets, and a big part of that play is the LTS release. And even though the next Ubuntu release -- 8.04 (due 4/08 ... also known as April 2008) -- is going to be a Long Term Support release, with fixes, patches and the like for three years on the desktop, five years on the server, there's still quite a bit of time left for the current Ubuntu LTS, which will be supported until June 2009 on the desktop and June 2011 on the server.

The new installer -- you don't really need it if you can successfully use the old installer, already have a 6.06 LTS install (like I do) and have done all the updates -- underscores Canonical's commitment to the LTS concept. While the twice-yearly releases of Ubuntu get most of the light and heat in the uber-geek community, there are many who depend on the relative stability of the LTS release to keep their hardware running. That's especially true on servers, where major upgrades every six months are impractical at best and detrimential at worst -- nobody wants to break a system that's been running well.

And the LTS is vital as a counterweight to Red Hat Enterprise Linux and SUSE Linux Enterprise Server/Desktop, both of which are supported for years on end.

I'd like to say that Debian Stable (currently Etch) and Old Stable (Sarge) are equivalents, but since you can't pin down a date certain for length of their support, there is a bit of an unknown factor there, although once the Stable release goes to Old Stable, you pretty much know that the new Stable release won't give you too many problems.

Sure, many desktop users generally want something more cutting-edge, mainly something like the regular Ubuntu releases, but there are many people -- and many situations -- that warrant hanging on to a Linux installation as long as possible. Over the time I've used Ubuntu and Xubuntu (from 6.06 LTS through 6.10, 7.04 and 7.10), I've seen some parts of the installation improve dramatically, I've seen hardware work better, then worse, and occasionally not at all.

And we all know an individual or organization that hates doing major upgrades, ever. Those coming from a Windows or Macintosh background aren't all used to major OS upgrades. In the case of Windows AND Mac's OS X, major upgrades almost always cost money. $129 for an OS X upgrade might not sound like much, but paying that much every couple of years when your computer runs just fine the way it is? No thanks. That's why I'm still running OS X 10.3 on my Mac. And Windows? I have a disc for Windows 2000, and I'm not about to pay ANYTHING for the privilege of upgrading my sole Windows box (which I boot maybe twice a year) to XP.

And in Linux, just because we can change out distros 10 times a day if we wish, it doesn't mean that we have to -- or should. For people who crave the stability of long-term releases, one thing generally drives upgrade: newer software they need to get their work done, and new hardware that needs new software to run properly.

I did this most recent Ubuntu 6.06 LTS installation for testing purposes, but I've stuck with it because it just works. On this test box, it's flawless. On my Gateway Solo 1450 laptop, it manages the fan as well as 7.10 (i.e. not at all without a cron job; but well with said cron job), but less well than 7.04 (which has the ACPI working with no coding needed). (Note: I'm not currently running Ubuntu at all on the Gateway laptop, which is currently dual-booting the Slackware 11-based Wolvix Hunter 1.1.0 and Debian Lenny, which I upgraded from the stable Etch.)

Using Ubuntu 6.06 LTS on this test box, sure I'm stuck with Firefox 1.5, OpenOffice 2.0, GMOME 2.14.3 and Evolution 2.6.1, but everything works. And there's nothing I do that I can't do with applications of this "vintage." If I this machine had wireless and it didn't work with 6.06, I might feel differently about LTS, but with the hardware I have now, LTS is a good fit.

So if you're looking for stable, supported releases, especially ones that won't cost you anything, it's nice to have Ubuntu LTS as a choice along with CentOS and Scientific Linux (both free versions of Red Hat Enterprise Linux), SUSE, Debian and Slackware.

As far as stable, long-term releases go, I have run CentOS (3.9. 4.2 and 5), Debian (Etch and Lenny) and Slackware (12), as well as Ubuntu LTS, and Ubuntu holds up very well on the desktop in this crowd. It's more flexible, as far as adding software, than CentOS and Slackware -- it doesn't have as many packages as Debian, but it does have plenty -- and the desktop and menus are a bit more tame than Debian's, with a better out-of-the-box experience, especially for inexperienced users.

And the support available from other Ubuntu users is a major component of the distro's success. All the advice may not be of the best quality, but there's just so much of it that you're bound to find the right answer to whatever it is you're asking. Not that the Debian community isn't helpful (I love DebianHELP and the Debian User Forums, but they just don't have the sheer volume of the Ubuntu Forums. Like I said, there's a lot more noise among the Ubuntu people ... but that's the price you pay, I guess.

And since Ubuntu is based on Debian, what you learn in one community is more often than not directly applicable in the other.

Another thing I discovered today: I enjoy reading the Planet Debian blog posts from Debian developers, and I had no idea that there's a Planet Ubuntu as well. Both are more than worth adding to your favorites and checking on from time to time.

Over the past year, I've used both Debian and Ubuntu extensively, and I always say that Debian isn't as "hard" to use as some would make it appear. Nor is Ubuntu a relative cakewalk. Both require, at times, a bit of wading into the muck to make things work. As far as installation goes, Debian's installer -- upon which Ubuntu's "alternate" installer is very closely based, is quite good, and has succeeded for me many more times than Ubuntu's live CD and alternate-CD discs, but Ubuntu works often enough.

What Ubuntu has that Debian lacks is a marketing plan. For some -- especially the average Linux user (read: geek) -- having no marketing plan is, in and of itself, a marketing plan of sorts. Nobody's trying to make Debian "cool," or giving you reasons why you should or shouldn't run it. And while there are a few Debian evangelists out there, and a few for Slackware as well, there's nothing approaching the fervor over Ubuntu.

That might be good, or bad, depending on how you look at it.

A lot of people are running Debian and Slackware -- they're just quieter about it, I guess.

Anyhow, this post has gone on for far too long. All I want to say is that I'm in favor of long-term, "stable" releases with defined periods of support and a smooth upgrade path, and I'm glad that Ubuntu has pretty big foot in this very door.

And I like the fact that 6.06 LTS will be supported for over a year after the next LTS -- 8.04 -- is released a few months from now.

In reaction to recent security breaches, the U.S. Army is adding OS X servers to its data arsenal.

The Army isn't exactly saying that Macs and their OS are superior from a security standpoint to competing systems, but I do find the explanation interesting:

The Army isn't using any particular software package or OS X technology to improve security, though. Instead, it's hoping that having a more diverse mix of systems will make its networks harder to infiltrate. The security of the UNIX core of OS X, combined with the fact that less hackers are interested in Macs, were also given as reasons for introducing more Apple hardware.

...

Outside security vendors have leveled a number of criticisms against the Army for its Apple program, and have pointed out that Apple issues significantly more patches than Microsoft. The Army responded by saying that a large number of patches shows a greater commitment to security by Apple. Ultimately, the Army seems to be banking on paying off the extra cost of Macs by making its networks at least a bit less vulnerable to Windows security exploits.

I find Apple's recent efforts in the server space to be an interesting development. The more competition in the server area, the better. I think there's a definite space for Apple in betwen the high end of Solaris and traditional Unix, the Windows Server offerings and the vast Linux server market. If I knew more, I'd say more, but I don't, so I won't.

I haven't updated much in the past few days because I haven't used the Puppy box much in that time. I finished up my long gOS review -- and come to think of it, Puppy would be perfect for the Everex Linux PC. You could keep gOS on there but boot Puppy from the CD/DVD drive and have a super-fast system that blows the standard gOS install out of the proverbial water.

But back to the second Thin Puppy Torture Test. The box has been chugging along, no problem.

Today I had somebody ask me to grab a bunch of photos off of two SD Flash memory cards. I plugged my card reader into the remaining USB port, used the Puppy Drive Mounter to mount and open it, and then I dragged a bunch of images to the My-Documents folder, which if you've used Puppy before, is owned by root.

And in Puppy, you run as root, not in a normal user account. There have been all kinds of arguments about the wisdom of running as root -- and it's many people's main complaint about Puppy, that running as root is not safe. Damn Small Linux creates a user account when you boot the live CD, and you can go multiuser and create named accounts if you want. I believe the GrafPup spin of Puppy also allows the use of user accounts. ... And Puppy allows you to create any number of pup_save files, booting into whichever one you wish (and also encrypting and password-protecting them if you want), allowing for multiple users on the same computer (but still running as root).

I'm not really qualified to comment on the root vs. user debate, but I've never had any problems, and I understand that especially in the live CD environment, it doesn't matter as much. Again, I leave it to the experts.

But back to the photos. There were quite a few of them, and I only have a 256 MB Flash drive connected to the Thin Puppy box, so I didn't/couldn't transfer them all to Puppy's filesystem.

Still, after I transferred some and then later deleted them, my Puppy "free RAM" indicator dropped from 111 MB to 89.9 MB and stayed there. I've been told that this indicator is not a true picture of free RAM on the system, but it's curious that it drops and, at this point at least, doesn't rebound after files are deleted.

I pulled the card reader before unmounting the Flash card, and I got a warning message from Puppy. Remember to unmount your media!! The message suggested that I reboot, but since this is the Thin Puppy Torture Test II, I ignored that warning.

The system is still running fine, and I got the chance to use MtPaint and GTKSee as image viewers. MtPaint isn't really designed to look at images in a "slide show" fashion, but one good thing is that you can open an image in a directory, use ctrl-mouse wheel to shrink it so it fits in the window, and then retain that image size when viewing all the other images in the directory, opening them up as needed.

But GTKSee is better for doing a slide show. Just open the application (under Graphics), navigate to the proper directory, and start the slide show under the Tools menu (or by typing ctrl-S).

P.S. Since I didn't have enough memory in the Thin Puppy to burn a CD with all those images, I started up Puppy 2.17 (it was the first Puppy CD I found) on my Windows box, mounted the SD chip and threw everything into a directory on the Windows drive. I got the usual warnings about writing to NTFS partitions, but I ignored them. I got a warning the next time I booted into Windows, but everything was there, and everything was fine. (I burned my CD in Windows, not Puppy because I had work to do with the proprietary publishing software that I need for my "real" job).

I'll have to experiment with Puppy's CD burning applications later.

But one thing I always forget is that Puppy runs GREAT on my 3 GHz Pentium 4 Dell. I'm not used to running Linux of any kind on such a "powerful" machine. I'd love to run all my Linux distros on something so "good" (its 512 MB RAM is twice what I have on any other box).

One thing about low-spec Linux distros like Puppy. As well as they run on old, old hardware, if you can get everything configured, they really fly on "modern" PCs.

Pup_save thoughts: The pup_save in Puppy Linux has a predetermined size. Usually the largest you can make is 1.25 GB. There is a warning message that crops up (I can't remember where) that says you can make a pup_save up to 1.83 GB, but that is the largest tested configuration. I don't know if there is a limit on the size of a "save" file in Damn Small Linux or Knoppix (both of which use the same "save" technology, I think -- but don't quote me), and having a limit on how big the pup_save can be is somewhat of a limitation in Puppy. I suggest having additional storage space outside of the pup_save on which to store large files -- and large amounts of files, for that matter.

On this Thin Puppy, unless I add another Flash drive, I'm stuck with the 256 MB on the primary USB Flash drive.

I've been using IrfanView heavily on my Windows box. And yes, I love it more than ever. I've been using it to process screen grabs (I use the Print Screen key to copy the screen image, then I start the new image in IrfanView, paste it in and crop what I need).

And I love the "create custom selection" feature, which I have preconfigured with the exact pixel dimension I need for one of the images I have to cut regularly. First I size down the image to a little bigger than I want it, then I go to "create custom selection" in the menu, and a box the exact size I want it is superimposed on the image. I can then crop right there, or right-click with the mouse to move the box exactly where I want it.

Now that I have Wine on my Ubuntu 7.04 install (yes, IEs4Linux did work), I need to start trying to run IrfanView under Linux. If it works, I will be a very, very happy camper indeed.

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.

A release candidate for Windows Vista SP1 is out there, Ars Technica reports.

Traditionally, major vendors wait until Microsoft releases the first Service Pack before adopting a new version of Windows.

I dont' recommend doing it, but if you have a noncritical box and want to try Vista SP1, get it here and here. Ars also recommends reading the FAQ before doing anything.

The writer of the item, Paul Mah, has already dumped Vista:

Unfortunately, to try this I needed a laptop that actually worked more than 50 percent of the time and have already zapped the Vista Business from my Vaio in favor of Windows XP.

And one of the best Windows sources, Microsoft-Watch, has its own take on the blizzard of Service Packs coming out of Redmond.

Here's the deal. We've got a Mac at home ... and my two Linux-equipped laptops. This Old PC in the Back Room has no Internet connectivity at present. And the university where Ilene teaches changed their online administrative portal from one that works in Firefox to one that ... does not. It requires Internet Explorer, version 5.5 or greater. That even leaves out the last version of IE that Microsoft deigned to produce for Mac's OS X.

I returned to the easiest way to get Internet Explorer (and the Wine tools required to run it and many other Windows apps). That would be IEs4Linux.

By following the Ubuntu-specific instructions, I was able to get wine, cabextract and all the relevant files to install IE 5.5 and IE 6 on my Gutsy setup. Yep, Gusty is still giving me trouble with any package-management program that isn't apt or Aptitude, but since I have those two at my disposal still, I'm sticking with this install for awhile.

Anyway, even though the process involves changing the repositories in /etc/apt/sources.list, then downloading, unpacking and installing from a tarball, it's all laid out. My advice: go to the page and use copy and past to get the exact code into your terminal window.

There are also distro-specific instructions for: Fedora, Gentoo, Debian, Suse, Mandriva and PCLinuxOS.

In short, if you need IE, this works. And you now have Wine, with which you can experiment with other Windows apps on your Linux box. It's trial and error (mostly error) in my limited experience; for heavy duty use of Wine, I recommend Code Weavers, which costs money but is probably well worth it.

As I've previously written, my first "experiment" will be getting IrfanView running under Linux. Sadly, there is nothing -- NOTHING -- on Linux to equal IrfanView when it comes to image editing -- or at least the kind of image editing I do.

Ed Bott of ZDnet has been measuring his PC power consumption.

Not surprisingly, you save a whole lot of power by using S3 sleep mode to dramatically reduce power draw during times when the PC is turned on but not being used. Bott seems to suggest that S3 is something that Windows Vista offers and XP doesn't. I'm not an expert in this realm, other than to report that sleep or "suspend," as it's often called, rarely works in most Linux distributions, and that these days a lot of effort is being expended to get suspend working in laptops under Linux.

But here's Bott on S3 in his experience:

I ... attached a Kill A Watt meter to the Dell C521 PC that I’ve been using for my ongoing Media Center experiments. At rest, it uses about 64 watts, and its power consumption is roughly equivalent to the HP server over time. However, it’s dramatically more power-efficient, thanks to Windows Vista’s sleep mode. In the past 24 hours, it has used less than 0.5 kWh. Over the course of a month, that’s about $1.20 in electricity. The secret of its power-saving success is S3 sleep mode. When this system kicks into S3 mode, it uses a mere 3 watts, according to the Kill A Watt device. That 0.5 kWh equals 8 hours a day of full-power usage, coupled with 16 hours in sleep mode. If I were to leave it on with sleep disabled, energy usage would triple. Using the default Balanced power settings for the three PCs in this house will save more than 1000 kWh over the course of a year, or $82.

He promises more on S3 mode in a future entry. I'll be looking for it.

Suspend works great on our iBook G4, but with Apple and OS X, you expect stuff like that to work -- and you usually get what you expect.

While my answer is yes, others think differently, including this guy from InformationWeek.

Here are the first two paragraphs:

It is inarguably accurate to note that, while Linux is a success on the server side--Apache on Linux runs more Web sites than Microsoft (NSDQ: MSFT)'s ISS, though the latter is gaining--the open-source operating system has been a dismal failure on the desktop. There are at least seven solid reasons, which I'll detail below, why Linux hasn't moved the needle beyond a single-digit desktop market share since it hit the scene in 1991, and never will.

Desktop Linux's failure to launch is all the more mystifying when you consider that it's hard to think of any technology which has been backed by such an enthusiastic and committed group of supporters. Unfortunately, that boost has largely backfired.

On the contrary, I think the relative simplicity, sheer usability and security, as well as cost and lack of vendor lock-in will all work to slowly push more and more businesses and home users into the Linux camp.

With free, open-source applications like Firefox, Thunderbird, OpenOffice, the GIMP and others being ported to Windows and Mac architectures, users who have never worked on anything but a closed, proprietary operating system will be using FOSS for the first time, and that's a small step over to making the rest of their system FOSS as well.

And while projects like Ubuntu are doing so much to bring Linux to the more "casual" user, I predict that an easier-than-ever Linux (call it "Linux for Dummies," if you'd like), be it Ubuntu or some other yet-to-be released distro, will cause a major stir in the computer world and shift a sizable percentage of desktops away from Windows and to free, open solutions.

And as I've also said before, Linux is right now the most likely candidate, but the next popular OS could very well be something we've never seen -- a new project cooking in somebody's head that attacks the problem of the personal computer operating system in a whole new way.