Here we go again, with yet another round of bogus reporting about the extent of malware infections in the United States. A wide range of news agencies are reporting the results of a new report that supposedly reveals that one in four computers in the U.S. are infected with malware. But all it takes is a little digging to discover that this is literally a fourth-hand report of data originally gathered in 2005. The most ironic part? When I tried to view the original report from the Pew Internet project, Google stopped me with a false warning that I was about to visit an unsafe site.
The Ed Bott Report
Get outspoken insights and expert advice on the products and companies that define today's tech landscape, from a source who knows these technologies inside and out.
Ed Bott is an award-winning technology writer with more than two decades' experience writing for mainstream media outlets and online publications.
The trouble with UAC isn't a single request for permission. Instead, what bothers most people is the second UAC prompt, and the third, and the fourth, and so on. was all prepared to lay out my modest proposal for how Microsoft should tweak UAC in Windows 7. And then I said, "Hey, wait a minute! I already did this." My four suggestions for easing the pain of UAC fell on deaf ears when I first published them more than two years ago. Maybe someone in Redmond is more willing to listen today.
If you troubleshoot Windows PCs for fun or profit, then chances are you've used one or more tools from Sysinternals. Microsoft bought the company and its amazing library of diagnostic and troubleshooting utilities in 2006, and the collection has been continually updated ever since. A few weeks ago, I ran into Sysinternals co-founder Mark Russinovich at a technical conference, where he told me about a new Sysinternals service that was in private beta testing. Today, I'm pleased to break the news that Sysinternals Live is now open to the public.
Our technical press, like the mainstream media, sometimes has a hard time letting go of an idea it's been pushing. That's true even when new facts show that the old story wasn't, strictly speaking, accurate. Or when facts on the ground have changed and maybe it's time to alert your readers to the new realities. Today's case in point: A magazine devoted to hardcore gamers and tech enthusiasts does a bunch of tests and proves that Windows Vista with SP1 is every bit as fast as XP, on identical hardware. So what do they do with the story? The answer would make my old J-school professors weep.
In one of his best columns ever, Bruce Schneier explains why some computer security companies can't help selling fear. The way we as humans respond to potential threats provides a powerful economic incentive for a security vendor to find something, anything, and then to make some noise about what it found. Not so much that you'll be annoyed, but just enough to let you know they're on the job. So how do you strike the right balance between a healthy understanding of the risks of using the Internet and bug-eyed paranoia? How many layers of security do you need?
My colleague Mary Jo Foley and I have our ears to the ground in Redmond, listening for news of Windows 7, and we're hearing ... nothing. If this were like previous Windows development cycles, we would have already been buried in hype and white papers, but new Windows boss Steven Sinofsky has imposed an information lockdown. Is that a bad thing? With Vista, Microsoft overpromised and underdelivered. Will a "talk less, ship more" philosophy produce a better product?
An Australian developer of Windows security software is making headlines with research that claims to Windows Vista's is Windows Vista is "still a long way from immunity to online threats." So, what operating system is invulnerable to malware? When did that become the criterion for success in security? The data is sketchy (to say the least) and the underlying argument is flawed. As long as crooks are trying to scam their way onto your PC, humans will occasionally make bad decisions about which software to install. Do you really want an OS that substitutes its judgment for yours and refuses to install a program you want or need?
Last week Microsoft released Virtual PC 2007 Service Pack 1, with support for Windows Vista SP1 and Windows XP SP3 as host and guest, and Windows Server 2008 Standard as a guest OS. In the past, I've been underwhelmed with Virtual PC, but this update is surprisingly snappy. If you're thinking about installing Ubuntu 8.04 in a virtual machine, you'll get an error message almost immediately. Conspiracy? Nope. I'll show you where to find the simple, step-by-step workaround to get it running right.
In the three previous installments of this series, I discussed ways to improve the performance of Windows Vista by changing some settings (especially those installed by an OEM PC maker). Today's installment is a little different. Mostly, it's about not wasting your time following bad advice. The single most common bogus tip I read at Windows-focused websites is the one that advises Vista users to disable "unnecessary" services. What's an unnecessary service? They can't tell you, so they recommend that you waste yor time with tedious trial-and-error techniques. Bad advice. I'll save you time (and headaches) by identifying four specific circumstances under which you might want to disable services to improve system performance. Read on for the full details.
Last month, I kicked off the Windows 7 release date prediction pool with my analysis on why I think Windows 7 will be released in time for the holiday buying season in 2009, picking July 29, 2009 as my entry. At the same time, I invited readers to add their guesses in the TalkBack section. This morning, I went back and tallied the vote so far. If you believe in the theory of crowdsourcing, the wisdom of the community should be able to predict this date more accurately than any individual. So, when will Windows 7 ship? The crowd has spoken. And the date is...