IE 9 has been parceled out in early test versions for some time, and now there is what's called the fourth "platform preview" available. Like previous previews, this edition isn't yet quite a browser, as it doesn't include an address bar or a key way to navigate around the Web. So what is it good for? Testing performance and compatibility of custom apps -- that's what.
For those that really want to see the new browser in action, the first beta, with real browser features, is the very next step.
Our online news editor Kurt Mackie is a bit of an IE 9 guru and he shares more details here.
Posted by Doug Barney on 08/06/2010 at 1:18 PM0 comments
For years there have been fears that IPv4 addresses were running out, and the Web would be more paralyzed than the U.S. Congress. I had the honor of interviewing Vint Cerf on this very subject over ten years ago, and came away a bit nervous. Cerf's answer? Move over to IPv6.
As I understand it, there were some tweaks (kludges?) to IPv4 that expanded the address space and bought us an extra decade or so. Now that time is running out, and without a new kludge, we could be plum out of IPv4 addresses, tout de suite.
According to Internet registries, the situation is so bad that all remaining addresses could be gone by the end of the year.
The real issue is that converting to IPv6, even though it's been available for many years, ain't always an easy thing. But again, you are the experts. Is IPv6 a piece of cake or a piece of something else? Tell me at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 08/06/2010 at 1:18 PM5 comments
We turn this issue's Mailbag to a reader who wants to get a few gripes he has with today's technology off his chest:
Every kid I know says, "Cool." I have kids and, as a result, know a lot of kids. And everything is, "Cool.". "Cool" has never gone out of vogue. "Out of vogue" has, but not "Cool." It remains a very groovy thing to say.
I love technology. I look back on the '70s and think, "If I needed to contact someone, my only option was to find a telephone that was tethered to a wall somewhere." I mean, Ma Bell's final introduction of the RJ11 for general use was the greatest technological blessing of that decade -- more important to me than the moon landing of the previous one. Here some of this decade's technological breakthroughs that I just don't understand:
- The Kindle? $200.00 versus a book that costs $.50-$25.00? A book can be resold and reused. If a book is lost it's just an annoyance, not a noticeable financial hit. The print won't disappear because of copyright problems. Their ads and images show people using Kindles on the beach and on the bus. Rain, sand, theft, sudden stops? Kindle -- you're down $200.00.
- And the iPad? It's not as functional as a Laptop. It's too big to be a phone and doesn't make calls anyway (wouldn't it be cool if it did, though? I'd love to see someone holding an iPad up to their ear like a boom box in the '80s.). It's probably the most expensive conversation piece ever, unless you collect art.
- And the Netbook? I guess if you carry a purse. So why aren't they all pink? They don't seem to represent any great savings -- you end up having to purchase outboard hardware if you want a larger hard drive or a DVD burner. If you just absolutely can't get to a laptop, I guess it's better for working with documents and spreadsheets than on a smart phone, but when was the last Excel emergency you had?
Now, I'm sure there are a number of people out there for whom these niche products fit a unique need, situation or lifestyle. I don't doubt that at all. What I don't understand is the long lines and the demand far exceeding what even the manufacturers anticipated. Such as paying $500.00 for a new version of the same phone you already have and standing in a long line for the privilege of doing so (Malibu Stacy's got a new hat, people!) or buying an overpriced 'appliance' that even the manufacturer can't adequately explain why anyone would need it.
I can't imagine living in the technological dark ages again. No internet? Just shoot me! Have to actually talk to people or write them letters and mail them? Actually meet my "friends" (in person!!!???)? Plus, I'd have to get a real job! But there is a lot of this I just can't wrap my head around at all. I just know I need a much larger smartphone and a much smaller laptop and I need them now.
Thanks for letting me vent.
-G
Share your thoughts with the editors of this newsletter! Write to [email protected]. Letters printed in this newsletter may be edited for length and clarity, and will be credited by first name only (we do NOT print last names or e-mail addresses).
Posted by Doug Barney on 08/06/2010 at 4:59 PM8 comments
As part of its energized mobile push, Redmond is getting close to chip maker ARM.
Microsoft has what's called an "architectural license," which gives Microsoft access to ARM's chip innards.
ARM is also used in the iPhone, and Microsoft clearly wants to level this particular playing field. Rumor has it that Microsoft may use ARM as the basis of a tablet, just like Apple did with its ARM-based iPad. Good luck with all that!
Posted by Doug Barney on 08/04/2010 at 1:18 PM0 comments
When I heard an ex-Microsoft employee was busting Redmond's chops, I chalked it up to bitterness. Then I learned the critic, Don Dodge, now works for Google, and realized Dodge's primary motivation is probably arrogance.
Dodge wrote a blog arguing that Microsoft is no longer a growth company (guess he hasn't tracked its latest quarterlies) and should stop spending money on R&D. I'm sure Google would love Redmond to stop inventing new technology, but does Dodge know where a lot of this money actually goes? I do. Microsoft researchers work with top scientists and academics around the world on issues such as population growth, starvation, global warming and disease.
I'm not a Microsoft fanboy, but when the company does things right, it deserves praise.
Is Microsoft a better corporate citizen, or am I just sipping the Kool Aid? You tell me at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 08/04/2010 at 1:18 PM2 comments
Mary Jo Foley, Redmond columnist and renowned Microsoft watcher, has been hearing rumors and pleas for Bill Gates to return to full-time Microsoft duties. Don't get your hopes up, Foley says. Bill is thoroughly, and for me, thankfully, ensconced in his humanitarian efforts.
Many of those wishing for a Gates return are not huge fans of Steve Ballmer. But as Foley points out, Steve has said he wants to remain in Redmond till his oldest kid goes to college, some eight years in the future.
I don't share these views 100 percent. While I'd love to see Bill back full time, his charity work is far more important that cutting deals and reviewing code (yeah, Bill is famous for his code reviews). And I'm not a Ballmer basher. I've known the guy since the mid-80s and this is one smart, intense dude. He's probably the most fun CEO in existence today.
Those that question Microsoft's methods must not track their financials -- which keep getting better and better. Maybe someday the stock price will catch up to this phenomenon.
Do you or did you own MSFT stock? Tell me whether you won or lost, and what Redmond needs to do to get the stock price moving at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 08/04/2010 at 1:18 PM1 comments
Here's your thoughts on billionares, like Gates and Allen, giving away chuncks of their wealth to chariatable causes:
"Is this true charity, or just a way for successful business people to feel better about themselves?"
Neither, thanks to Obama. Being successful business people, investing, job creation and doing something that actually has a role in stimulating the economy doesn't pay anymore. You might as well give your extra cash to the charity of your choice rather than the government.
-Anonymous
Considering what the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has done so far, and the fact that Paul Allen has parted with a billion dollars, the motivation of the act truly doesn't matter if there is good work being done. I mean, I can donate a hundred dollars to a local charity and believe that I've made a small contribution to some good cause, but a billion dollars? The impact that gifts on that scale can make are sufficient that the personal intent of the donor stops being relevant.
If wealthy individuals like that were putting all their money into funding museums, symphony orchestras, endowing country clubs or some other similar thing, there could be room to criticize them. But given the causes that these resources are being directed to, there's very little that can be said against this.
I hope others in similar circumstances get this bug. It sets an example that a lot of us could benefit from, in our own spending habits.
-Dennis
You asked what lurks within the hearts
and minds of wealthy people who give huge gifts to charitable causes. I
think you are asking the wrong people. You should ask the givers, not
the bystanders. However, since you asked your readers, I will try to
rise to the challenge:
- Our government is so clueless with such a complicated tax
system that the wealthy can actually save money by giving it away. Ask a
CPA/tax attorney how. I don't know how.
- Government intrusion into the private sector skews professional
judgment about proper investment strategies. Government encourages
irrational decisions. This is to be expected because the government is
considered by many people to be the champion of irrational
decision-making.
- Too much wealth is personally embarrassing to an individual
with any kind of moral values. The antidote for embarrassment is to
contribute to an alleged honorable cause.
- They feel guilty because they sense that they earned their
wealth through dishonorable means. Guilt remission is obtained via a
charitable "sin offering."
- They hate their beneficiaries, or love them enough not to
entrap them into their financial fate. Therefore, they want to minimize
the worth of their inheritance by giving away their assets before their
death.
- They think their spouse is a gold digger. They want to minimize
their spouse's access to their money. Since there was no prenuptial
agreement, the only way to deny access is to give it away before the
spouse can file for divorce.
- They are bored and need something useful to do.
- They realize that they are mortal and cannot take their wealth
with them. They also believe that they will be judged based upon what
they did for others, not for how successful they were. They are working
on their "final exam" with their religious maker.
-Roger
I hate to be a cynic, but the only other motive is tax avoidance.
-Anonymous
Share your thoughts with the editors of this newsletter! Write to [email protected]. Letters printed in this newsletter may be edited for length and clarity, and will be credited by first name only (we do NOT print last names or e-mail addresses).
Posted by Doug Barney on 08/04/2010 at 1:18 PM4 comments
Microsoft and Adobe have become so close of late, I'm wondering if an acquisition may be in order (that would be Redmond buying Adobe, not vice versa).
Adobe is using a Microsoft-built sandbox to protect PDFs, and Adobe patches will be part of Redmond's Patch Tuesday.
Microsoft is taking this a step further by distributing Adobe vulnerability information through the Microsoft Active Protections Program (MAPP).
MAPP gives software vendor info on exploit flaws before they are patched, giving Microsoft partners a head start on closing their own holes.
Posted by Doug Barney on 08/02/2010 at 1:18 PM2 comments
A new exploit, the so-called shortcut flaw, is closed as of today -- so long as you download the patch.
Here what this flaw is all about: Hackers use the Windows Shell to distribute nasty code that exploits Windows desktop shortcuts. The biggest problem? One need not to click the shortcut for the malicious code to activate.
Microsoft only releases out-of-band, or non-Patch Tuesday patches in the direst of circumstances, so I'm guessing this is a pretty big deal, especially as Microsoft deems the flaw as ‘critical.' Microsoft noted that it also affects XP SP2, but these users won't be getting a patch; Microsoft ended patch support for XP SP2 on July 13.
Posted by Doug Barney on 08/02/2010 at 1:18 PM0 comments
Readers discuss the release of Microsft's consumer-minded security tool:
I have to say, I am hooked on MSE. I tested it out pretty extensively and researched it to see how its detection rates compared to other major engines. For detection and false-positive rates, it is one of the best in class -- at least according to the guys (and gals) who test virus scanners.
As for how well it works in the real world, I have been a very big fan of McAfee VirusScan Enterprise prior to MSE. I have since been replacing VirusScan with MSE on everything I own. I have noticed a LOT less speed slowdowns when using MSE. On VirusScan, I used to have the system go slow when occasionally opening programs. The VirusScan engine was scanning everything being opened. MSE hasn't slowed my machines down yet. Another benefit with MSE is that it includes an anti-spyware program. Most virus scanning engines do not do spyware at the same time. MSE does and, from my experience, it has caught things that would have been missed by VirusScan. The updating process being integrated with Windows Update is a bonus, but not game changing. All engines update themselves (or can be set to). I just like it being in Windows Update. Lastly, the price is right. Free, fast, and good beats any paid combination there is.
The big issue facing MSE adoption in the Enterprise is the lack of centralized console and distribution. If Microsoft builds it in to System Center in the near future, I think a few of those third-party security vendors better find new products. It is typical of Microsoft. The first few revs of a product are garbage. They just seem to persevere until they come up with a product that is a "must have." So far, I am satisfied with MSE and assume it will only get better.
-Daniel
I have installed MS Security Essentials on several client XP machines (Pro Version and Home Edition). It works very well, easy to install and configuration is automatic. The GUI interface is easy to understand, even for novices.
It runs more efficiently than other paid anti-virus programs (not bloated, slow startups, etc). Also, it found a virus that a very popular antivirus suite did not! I recommend it for home users.
Thank You Microsoft!
-Mike
I use MS Security Essentials (SE) on my three home PCs and love it. I found out yesterday one of our clients, which is a multinational corporation, will be using SE on all of the PCs/notebooks at their two U.S. locations. I'd guess that is a total of 250 nodes. I looked into the EULA and discovered it is meant for home use and also for home-based small businesses. I don't think he should be using it for that -- but he says it works great.
Another client of ours told me yesterday he will be using ClamWin for his 40-node Windows network that we will also be migrating to Exchange Online soon.
-Dan
First off, let me thank you for putting out two quality products with both Redmond and Redmond Channel Partner magazines. Both of them are very essential reading for me, and I always look forward to their arrival.
I have been using Security Essentials since it first went into beta over a year ago and have had nothing but complete success with the product. I was a beta tester for Live OneCare, and used it until Security Essentials was released. It is what I recommend to all of my home-user customers, and they have always been completely satisfied with it. I especially enjoy the fact that it is just an anti-malware product, without all of the extras that many of the current paid products include. Windows already comes with an excellent firewall and Internet Explorer 8 has plenty of security features -- Security Essentials just rounds them out. The fact that it is available free of charge is just the icing on the cake. I think many of the other anti-malware vendors could take a lesson from Microsoft and put out a entry-level consumer product with low overhead and minimal features at little or no cost to the consumer.
-Robert
Share your thoughts with the editors of this newsletter! Write to
[email protected]. Letters printed in this newsletter may be edited for length and clarity, and will be credited by first name only (we do NOT print last names or e-mail addresses).
Posted by Doug Barney on 08/02/2010 at 4:59 PM1 comments
While it been in the space for more than decade, Microsoft is a mere footnote in the world of mobile devices. Steve Ballmer hopes and expects that Windows Phone 7 will change all that. I saw a quick demo from a Microsoft employee showing his personal device, and it looked way slicker than past Windows phones. But the iPhone, Droid and Blackberry get slicker with each new rev.
Ballmer talked up the new mobile OS at last week's financial analysts meeting. It's not just about the phone features, Ballmer argues, but the back end. The idea is for the phone to access one's "personal cloud" where key files are securely stored, in this case, using Microsoft's Skyline storage service. Microsoft is also looking to have Skyline pre-installed on new Windows 7 PCs.
I recently broke down and bought a new Blackberry, and it is worlds above the three-year-old phone I killed with a dip in the ocean. But I've got to tell ya, there is nothing remotely sexy about the Blackberry. Guess I should have sprung for the iPhone, which I'll get next time I kill my Blackberry with salt water!
Does Microsoft have a shot at the mobile phone market? Tell us why or why not at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 08/02/2010 at 1:18 PM5 comments
I have to admit I got scooped by Harry McCracken, former editor-in-chief of PC World who now runs Technologizer. He wrote about the 25 anniversary of the Amiga computer. As former editor-in-chief of AmigaWorld magazine, I really should have been on top of this. Harry did a great job chronicling the amazing but ultimately tragic history of the Amiga.
In 1985, the Amiga 1000 was launched by Andy Warhol and Debby Harry in Lincoln Center. Months later, Bill Gates was quoted as saying something to the effect of "you can't multitask in 640K-bytes of RAM." Gates apparently didn't know that his version of AmigaBasic ran four different tasks simultaneously in 128K.
This machine also had TV quality graphics, CD quality sound and a multiprocessing architecture. It also crashed a lot -- a feature Gates stole and put into nearly every edition of the Windows client.
The standardization of the PC killed off the incentive for many publishers to support the Amiga, while Commodore's incompetence did the rest. The machine died right when the hardware was getting really really really good.
When I was there, AmigaWorld did a video about the history of the Amiga as well as two volumes of animation done by readers.
What would the world be like had the Amiga lived? Conjecture and speculation equally welcome at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 07/30/2010 at 4:59 PM2 comments