Another Day With My PC

Many PC users are now realizing the importance of system tools. There used to be a time when computer repair and maintenance were delegated to professionals or persons other than the owner of the unit. That might have been understandable several years ago due to the lack of or complexity of the programs that were written for the elimination of viruses or debugging of software.

Things have significantly changed as far as ease of use of system utilities is concerned. For example, cleaning the Windows registry is not as esoteric and dangerous as it previously was. Before the advent of registry cleaners, many PC users had to reload their back up system files or conduct a system-restore procedure in order to escape the disastrous effect of the unauthorized or erroneous changes in their registry. The method was obviously tedious, not to mention ineffective since the unwanted instructions might have already been in the registry long before the creation of the restore point.

System tools are a must for every user, even for those who think that they have no business in tinkering with the settings or files of their PC. Being your own PC technician is not as hard as it may seem, especially with the help of utility programs that fixes things in just a click of a button.

Talk about one-upping malware authors.

Microsoft recently blew two bombs on its face that were originally intended for its enemies. The patches that it recently released to bolster the security of its latest Web browser turned out to be the more dangerous threat to its customers’ systems. The first killer pill that it released was supposed to be its answer to threats from Web pages that have infected COM objects. Users who log on or browse through these infected sites could inadvertently allow other people to take control of their PC. The second one deals with Internet Explorer 7’s property method.

Freeze!

There were no figures given as to how many users were affected by the poisoned patches. Vista users who have downloaded and installed it might experience a system freeze or crash. The problem is caused by IE 7’s inability to utilize or recognize the changes in the location of Window’s Temporary Internet Files folder.

Vista users are not the only ones affected by the problem. Reports say that Windows XP SP2, 2000 SP4, and Server 2003 users might not be able to access Windows or Microsoft Update after they’ve installed the defective patches.

Earnest Effort

We all know that Microsoft is always frantically plugging holes in its products, especially in its operating systems. Sometimes the Redmond company finishes first. Of course, that isn’t usually the case. Many of the tears in its applications are usually discovered after they’ve been exploited. Hence, they usually release patches or updates with a red face.

I pity the programmers at Microsoft for always being blamed for everything that goes wrong with XP and Vista. Sure, they’re the ones who have created it. However, bugs and glitches are already indelible facts of computing life. People shouldn’t be too harsh in condemning software authors for their PC mishaps.

I’m not saying that programmers should be exonerated for all the imperfections of their creations, though. As every product has a warranty that it’s free from defects, or at least that a solution would be provided for by the manufacturer should an inherent defect be found, it’s only right that software makers should continuously see to it that their products would be able to function despite the threats around it. Updates or patches are great ways by which application authors warrant the viability of their goods.

Goodwill

The task or responsibility of a manufacturer towards its product doesn’t end upon the ringing of the cash register. It’s not enough that it should see to it that its creation meets the expectations of the consumer. Many companies are investing on ways by which they would be able to make their old customers feel that they’ve made the right choice when they bought the product. Releasing patches or updates is one of the ways by which businesses, especially software companies, could assure their customers that the product that they’ve bought will be able to sail through any contingency that might not have been possible or perceived during the time the program was originally released.

A top executive from Microsoft has revealed that the company has been more successful in squashing the bugs of its previous operating system than in the present one.

Jeff Jones, Redmond’s security strategy director, revealed in a report that out of the 27 Vista problems that appeared during its first six months, only 12 were given a solution to. In contrast, only 3 of XP’s 39 holes that were discovered during the same period weren’t patched.

Jones was quick to add that most of the vulnerabilities were not critical. He pointed out that Microsoft left only one problem unanswered that was considered as severe. On the other hand, the company failed to provide a patch for two critical problems in XP during its first 6 months.

The report didn’t spare other operating systems written by its competitors. The study showed that Vista is fairing better than the OS X and Linux as far vulnerabilities are concerned.

The comparison may be premature as it only covered the first six months of the two operating systems. It would definitely appear that XP is the more vulnerable OS. However, that conclusion or observation might change as hackers now shift their focus from XP to Vista.

Many are wondering if Microsoft’s operating system for PDAs and smart phones experience the same problems, such as virus and spyware infestation, that its PC counterpart is constantly being subjected to. Both programs technically perform similar functions. Hence, it shouldn’t be surprising if your smart phone’s OS experience crashes due to Windows registry errors.

Surprisingly though, mobile phone operating systems rarely experience most of the problems that are plaguing XP and Vista. Could it be that Windows Mobile 6, or its predecessor, was designed more carefully or meticulously than its PC versions?

Malware attacks on PDAs and smart phones are not very common. However, it usually just takes one attack in order for the malicious application to cause serious problems to your phone. The usual solution for mobile phone owners is to reinstall their unit’s OS. System utilities, such as registry cleaners or malware removers, are not usually or readily available to PDA or smart phone users.

Time will come when antiviruses or anti-spyware programs would already be available for mobile phone operating systems. PDAs and smart phones are expected to evolve into a compact but fully functional PC in just a few years time. Until then, you can expect a less complicated or troublesome time with your mobile unit.

Have you noticed it?

Apparently, Microsoft has incorporated the images of three men sporting wide grins on the installation disks of Windows Vista (Business Edition). Those who were meticulous or curious enough to scrutinize the hologram must have thought that their copy was a crack.

I’m sure the operating system’s maker has received many calls regarding this. For the ordinary users who just want to get the software out of the box and install it on their PC, the find must have baffled them and made them wonder if their copy is truly genuine. Indeed, one would probably expect the logo of Microsoft to be the one depicted on the security sticker instead of three unknown faces, or that if Microsoft insisted on putting a face on the hologram, it should’ve been Bill Gates’.

Genuine Grins

The Vista maker allayed fears regarding the discovery. They belied suspicions or claims that copies bearing the grinning faces of the three grinning men were either hacked or carry add-ons that might significantly subtract the number of files in their hard drive. One of the reasons why many consumers are avoiding pirated copies of operating systems or even ordinary programs is due to the fact that a good number of them contain malicious codes.

It’s not surprising why many pirated copies of programs contain unwanted appendages. Antiviruses, spam guards, and registry cleaners have gotten more efficient in handling dangerous system intrusions. Thus, spyware authors have to find another way to infiltrate heavily-guarded PCs.

Welcome

The easiest way to get in to a computer is by letting the owner open its door for you. Hackers do this by disguising their malicious programs as legitimate ones, or incorporating them to the same. Thus, victims often find themselves being confronted by pop ups or unusual messages even if they haven’t opened any unknown file or accessed an infected Web site. Trouble knocked at their door and they immediately opened it.

Be careful when purchasing copies of programs from dubious stores or sources. They may offer you copies of applications that may seem to be genuine, but in truth are cracked copies that contain unwanted features. The caveat goes double for those who are buying pirated copies of various programs. The chances of getting registry-wrecking malware are significantly high when purchasing cracked programs. The few extra bucks that you’ll save from buying pirated software are not worth the troubles that you might probably get from malicious add-ons.

Mixed Reactions

I guess many were already relieved and enlightened on the mystery behind the three men in the Vista hologram. Microsoft assured its clients that those three are not hackers, but are in fact part of the designing team which made the security sticker. As for those who were hoping that the sticker would lead them to other hidden treats, the news came as a disappointment since they thought that Microsoft was up to something when it featured the three guys on the hologram.

Whether you’re installing genuine or pirated software, always have it scanned by antivirus or anti-spyware programs. It’s also equally important to check the integrity of your Windows registry after introducing new programs into your system.

There used to be a time when hard disk real estate was a prime but very scarce PC resource. During the mid 1990s, hard drive manufacturers were hard pressed in keeping up with the growing size of applications. The only safe solution to lack of space at that time was to buy another hard drive. But this is a very expensive remedy. Hence, many resorted to DriveSpace.

DriveSpace doubles up hard drive space by compressing files in the disk. While this program effectively frees up 30%-40% of disk space, it slows down file access and even endangers the integrity of many applications. Take note that DriveSpace increases breathing room by squeezing files and not expanding space. Hence, any error on the manner by which files are compressed and decompressed could very well mean the corruption of the file.

DriveSpace has long been extinct. It was still recognized by Windows 98, but the utility was entirely scrapped in XP. At present, hard drives is as cheap as any other media storage device. Well, not really, but it’s very affordable nonetheless.

The blog post that I’ve written about YouTube’s reluctance to regulate the uploading or downloading of videos in its Web site hasn’t even seen its first sunset yet in my page when the news that the Google subsidiary has started to implement a new video identification technology went out.

Hand in Hand 

Time Warner and Walt Disney will be teaming up with the embattled video-sharing Web site in the project. If the program goes well, copyright owners would be able to detect illegal uploads of their videos.

Although I’ve given a paragraph about this on my previous article, the tone that I’ve given to it was quite skeptical. Let’s face it. YouTube’s popularity skyrocketed when surfers discovered that it was a haven not only of homemade videos, but also of Hollywood-produced ones. You can’t blame people then for entertaining the suspicion that the Google company would really be hesitant in testing any kind of technology that would prohibit its clients from uploading or accessing protected contents. But, then again, it’s still too early to put that halo above YouTube’s head.

I hope that other video or file-sharing Web sites, such as Limewire, would also implement a similar technology in order to protect copyrighted products. Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for the free circulation or sharing of information on the Internet. However, I’m also batting for the respect of the rights of the companies or people who created them.

Going the Extra Mile 

Aside from creating a fingerprinting technology in order to detect unauthorized uploads or downloads, I wish that they would also come up with an innovation that would warn users beforehand that the file that they’re downloading contains a malicious code or content. I wouldn’t want to see my PC conk out on me because the file that I’ve downloaded raided my Windows registry. But I’m not rushing them. Besides, what are registry cleaners and antiviruses for.

YouTube isn’t rushing to filter out copyright-protected materials in its database, and I’m sure we all know why.

Copyright owners are crying foul over the popular video-sharing Web site’s refusal or lack of effort to install programs that would sort out protected contents from its catalog. They are accusing YouTube of willfully allowing Intellectual Property Rights infringement by turning a blind eye on the illegal downloading or showing of licensed materials.

The Google subsidiary is denying the accusations, saying that it cannot install the technology because it is partly defective. The search engine giant’s Google Video is also on the watch list of various entertainment and media groups for copyright infringement.

“Doable”

While the Herculean task of filtering YouTube’s database seems to be impossible, copyright owners insist that it is not. In fact, some video-sharing Web sites have already implemented a technology that could do just that. YouTube’s competitors, such as Dailymotion.com, Guba, and Eyespot have already incorporated the innovation into their systems. Microsoft’s own video-sharing service has also started to appease copyright owners by screening its database’s contents.

The technology that is being used by YouTube’s counterparts works by creating a digital ID of a video. The Web site’s database then looks for the video that matches the ID and removes or prohibits its download or display without the consent of the copyright owner.

Still on its Infancy

The filtering system is not fool-proof, though. In fact, it failed some tests. Newteevee.com said that the program failed to detect a number of illegal downloads that they have made. However, both YouTube’s competitors and copyright owners said that the technology is still a welcome development.

Despite the installation of the new filtering system on the databases of some video-sharing Web sites, Google is still hesitant in following its competitors’ footsteps. It cited the technology’s flaws and the difficulty of implementing it in its entire network.

I’ve always advocated for the free circulation or sharing of information on the Internet. However, this should be done within the parameters set by laws. However, the problem lies not on the implementation of the laws, but on the law themselves. May are questioning of the viability or applicability of copyright laws on the Internet. The video-sharing community might get an answer from judiciary soon. Google is currently facing a $1 billion copyright infringement law suit from Viacom.

Downloading Trouble

If you’re conscious about respecting protected contents, then be your own filter by refraining from downloading licensed videos. There are thousands of alternatives on the Internet. Be very careful when downloading them, though. There are many videos which are infected with various types of malware. It’s very difficult to detect which video files are corrupted. Victims often realize too late that their PC has already been taken over by unwanted applications after downloading and playing an infected file.

If you can’t help yourself from downloading different types of files on the Internet, then at least make it a point to conduct a regular registry and virus scan on your system. An early detection of malicious codes in your Windows registry could spare you from experiencing a system crash or slowdown.

Many anti spyware and antivirus programs promise ease of use and impeccable efficiency. Not surprisingly, many live up to that guarantee. Indeed, most security programs take care of everything, leaving the user virtually useless in the process.

This doesn’t mean that you should just always sit back and leave everything to the application. There are times when anti malware programs overreacts and eliminates files which are actually harmless, or worse, critical or important to some of your tasks.

Take, for instance, the way some antivirus treat IRC programs. McAfee’s Virus Scan has mistakenly identified mIRC as a potentially harmful program. While IRC software could introduce harmful programs to your system, it’s not a virus-hoarding application per se. As with any other programs, such as e-mail clients, it may serve as a portal for malware if used carelessly.

Before concurring with the recommendations made by your antivirus or anti spyware programs, make sure that you’ve thoroughly reviewed the report, especially if the remedy that is being suggested involves deleting the suspected files.

Have you ever wondered what happened to dial-up technology?

I was browsing through several Internet connection articles on PC World’s Web site when I thought of searching for some news or developments on dial-up access. To my surprise, the search led me to what probably is the archive section of the Web site.

The latest news on the list doesn’t even concern the United States. The report dealt with the pace that countries outside the US are embracing broadband Internet. It cited the declining costs of high speed Internet access and the willingness of the people to make the shift.

By now, the comparisons or analyses illustrated in the article may already be moot and academic. Everybody’s ditching their slow dial-up access for either a DSL or broadband cable connection. The advent of Wi-Fi has also convinced people to disconnect themselves from slow Internet access. Broadband is the new standard, and the demise of dial-up is obviously inevitable.