iTunes scrollbars on Leopard? "OMG MAC R AWESOME"
Random number generator decoded in Windows 2000? "OMG M$ R DUM"

Seriously, Apple users are the only people I wouldn't have been surprised to see clambering over a hack to change the color of the scroll bars. If that makes Apple products all the more worth it for them, then more power to them! To me? Well... A scroll bar is a scroll bar.

As for the number generator loophole. Apparently, someone managed to reconstruct and therefore predict the random number generator in Windows 2000, used for encryption and various things like that. Passwords and stuff. They go on and on about how this is such a horrible, horrible security risk and it needs to be fixed. Then they go on to say how they only tested Windows 2000, not XP or Vista, but "assume that newer versions of Windows" are also affected by this problem.

What? You're not sure? You didn't bother testing the latest Windows? You decided to randomly pick... Windows 2000 to crack? The version of Windows no longer officially supported by Microsoft? I guess it's good in the sense that you're making people aware of the problem, but to assume that newer versions of Windows are also affected sounds more like an anti-Microsoft fanatic and less like a scientific paper.

I'm not saying that such a thing is hard to believe, but come on. Why don't you channel this research money into trying to crack the latest operating system instead of the one 8 years old. That way, all the money you spent on this research might actually mean something.

And the comments on these articles are, of course, in the vicinity of "Microsoft cant code security worth squat lol Apple so better". What if, say, Mac OS X 10.1 was brushed over with a fine-tooth comb and they found the algorithm used to encode passwords or something that allowed someone, with local access, the ability to get into your system with some difficult work. What would the reaction be? I'm going to bet it'll be something along the lngs of: "Are you kidding? Apple doesn't even update 10.1 anymore. If you upgraded like you should have, you wouldn't have this problem! Another lame attempt to say Macs are just as insecure."

Let's apply that to this scenario! "Are you kidding? Microsoft doesn't even support Windows 2000 anymore. If you upgraded like you should have, you wouldn't have this problem! Another lame attempt to say Windows is the worst OS there is."

Then, of course, there'll be the people quick to point out that lots of people still use Windows 2000, and then I'd be quick to point out that they've had plenty of time to upgrade to at least XP, even since 2000 support was dropped, and this security risk was only just discovered a few days ago? That's a pretty good track record for an 8 year old operating system.

I could go on with all the different types of responses people will give to somehow try to make this discovery significant in one way or the other, but that would take too long and be too boring. Come back when you learn, for sure, that Vista and XP have this problem, and then it might mean something.

So the world is feigning shock during these last couple of days after learning that Microsoft is automatically updating Windows even when people turn it off... Sadly, everyone's caught up in the age old pastime of railing on Microsoft to actually do some fact checking.

The article being used as "confirmation" for the "rumor" is some idiot from ZDNet. He goes through all the whiny drivel of explaining why Windows is downloading stuff even when told not to. But there's a critical error in his process of explaining. His copy of Windows is NOT set to "Do not automatically update"... It's set to "download and notify", a very, very key fact in this whole charade.

Here's the original rumor from the same guy at ZDNet, and here's the alleged confirmation. He yaks about how some people want to keep Windows at a certain patch level for development purposes and don't want Windows going around updating without knowledge. (Fine, but I have a question. If you don't want updates on a development machine, why are you telling Windows to download the updates and notify you they're ready for installation? You realize you CAN disable automatic updates completely and manually check for updates yourself, right? I would think that's far more controlled than getting notifications.)

In both cases, he lists the files that are being updated "without permission". See how they're all prefixed with the letters "WU"? (Except for the first listed file for XP.) Well, I don't know about you... But that kinda looks like it's a Windows Update component and not a critical system file. In the confirmation article, he shows screenshots of the updater in action! First shot is the Event Viewer... What happens? "The Automatic Updater service entered the running state." Okay, the updater is running. Since you set this to DOWNLOAD AND NOTIFY, this is NOT unusual. It's got to check for updates to download, after all.

Second screenshot: "Installation Successful: Windows successfully installed the following update: Automatic Updates". Okay, so even with download and notify, it installed an update! GASP! What is Microsoft tampering with without our knowledge?! Oh, wait... It's just the automatic updater and no version-whacking critical component? Ooops, my bad.

Third screenshot shows the file properties for "wuapi.dll", which is simply the Windows Update Client API. I think he's trying to show that this was a file that was indeed updated. But, honestly, who cares if the Automatic Updater is updating itself? What, are you developing a program to distribute that... automatically downloads updates? Sounds like you need to focus on a new project, seeing as how Microsoft kinda already has an automatic updater. And if keeping the exact save version of Windows is SO CRITICAL for you? Disable the updater completely! It's just another button on the configuration window!

Microsoft responds to this sudden baseless uproar, and a product team blog post is made to explain exactly why this occurs. Read it. It explains everything and reiterates the fact that if you truly disable automatic updates, then no updates will happen. The thing is, when at any time the WAU is set up to download things... It had to update itself to properly list new patches for you. Microsoft is always tweaking Windows Automatic Updater (WAU), too, and they release new versions! Remember several months ago when Windows XP suddenly had to download a new release of WAU?

Basically, the updater updates itself periodically. Just like any other widely used server/client service! Ever play an old Sierra game with the online updaters? Guess what you downloaded first, before the game? That's right... an updater update. So it could properly detect new updates for you programs!

The way I see it, these Fear-Uncertainty-Doubt spreaders break down into two groups. Insanely private people who are going nuts that Microsoft DARE automatically update the updater service that the people HAVE TURNED ON... And the daft programmers who are going nuts because WAU is somehow screwing up their development platform. (Seriously? If your program, whatever it is, relies so much on the WAU files? You need to fix something, unless it's an alternative to WAU, in which case, nobody needs it, sorry.)

If you people are so upset that Microsoft DARE tamper with your system without your knowledge (when you're too dumb to notice you gave "permission" for Microsoft to "tamper" with your system by selecting the "download and notify" option), then hey! I have an idea...

Turn off Automatic Update! Here! I'll even help you people out:

In Vista, click the pretty little Windows logo button in the lower-left corner of the screen, click on "All-Programs", and in the main list, find and click on "Windows Update". The screen will pop up, where on the side bar you click "Change settings". Look at it VERY CAREFULLY... There! See it? The flashy red shield with an X? That's the "Never check for updates" option. You want that. Click it, go ahead, it won't bite you. Be sure to click OK when you're done or it won't change! There, did you click it? Well! You're done! No more Microsoft spying technology operating without your knowledge!

In XP, click the ugly Start Menu button on the lower-left corner of the screen and click Control Panel. Click "Switch to Classic View", if that shows up in your side bar, to get a long list of things. Near the top of the list is an option called "Automatic Updates". Double-click that. Oh, look! There's that flashy red shield with an X again! You guessed it! You need to click that and press OK.

There. You have now actually disabled Automatic Updates and WAU will no longer keep itself updated to correctly list the updates available to you. Be aware that since it no longer updates the client, you will most likely have to do that next time you connect.

That wasn't so bad, was it?

I mean honestly... the guy on ZDNet is whining his precious over-paid little butt off about WAU keeping itself current when it's on the SECOND most automatic process. The download and notify option... Not even the "Notify, but don't download" option. He said himself it's the "DOWNLOAD and notify", as in... check for updates, download them, and tell me they're ready to install.

This has got to be the overreaction to end all overreactions...

Okay, people. I ask that you leave any and all Microsoft preconceptions you may have at the door and take what you see here at it's true face value. Microsoft announced a new technology lastnight. Well, it's not entirely new, but let's not split hairs like everyone wants to do.

Microsoft announced the Surface, a retail multi-touch graphical user interface. Click that link, and watch the videos. Seriously. And before anyone makes some snide comment about how this is a typical Microsoft move to copy Apple's iPhone touchscreen, please... Go whine to someone who cares. Microsoft started research and development on the Surface in October 2001, so it's been almost 6 years in development. Yeah, that's really some quick slap-together to compete against Apple, folks.

This... Is the true future of computing. TW's been saying for a long time, and I agree completely, so much so that I've done college papers on it. Of all the utopian Star Trek technology, the LCARS menu system is going to be the first one we see. Actually, we're already seeing it. Multitouch technology has been around for a while, and we've seen small scale demonstrations on what it can do. But now that large scale manufacturers like Apple and Microsoft are actively developing devices that use it, I think LCARS is rapidly approaching. (At least faster than it was.)

Here's an older video demonstrating the Surface table. If you think the Surface website videos were staged in any way, here's a glimpse of some Microsoft employees showing off exactly what it can do:

If that's not enough to convince you, here's a similar demonstration by Bill Gates of Surface's features on the Today Show. Unfortunately, it's a Gizmodo video that I can't stream here. And pay no heed to Gizmodo's lame comment about dropping $10,000 to buy the thing. While I don't doubt it's going to be expensive, no price point has been announced, yet. Of course it's going to be expensive. Late-breaking technology like this is always expensive. Give it some time and we'll have these things all over the place. You have to admit that having Microsoft's aggressive marketing pushing something like this is really a very good thing.

I know it sounds rather... hyperbolic... But this is the future of computers. You realize we've had keyboards since the invention of the typewriter? Around 100 years ago? And you realize we'd have the mouse for nearly 25 years? The two devices on computers that have never been upgraded. That really needs to change. Interacting directly with a touchscreen is so much more natural and quicker. I think gaming will still use a keyboard and mouse, but, then again, there might be far, far better control interfaces with a massive touchscreen like the Surface.

I guess we'll have to wait and see!

(Oh, by the way, At World's End music is rocking awesome.)

So here's the Nintendo modding fiasco all over again... Only, not quite, but it's still similar in principle.

People mod their Xbox against Microsoft's warnings because "durn it, its my console and I have a right to do what I want to it lolol". Microsoft bans said Xboxes from Xbox Live because they have modified consoles. Maybe because Microsoft has a right to ban you when you break the rules you were supposed to read and actually agree to? Hmm. Novel approach.

Some people are also ticked off that Microsoft banned the actual console and not the Xbox Live username. Well, duh? Why ban the name when people will just sign up under another name with the same console? It's not the name that's broken, it's the console.

But come on, Xbox Live has always been crazy with modded Xboxes! When I did some research and modded my old Xbox to run Linux, it was posted all over the place that Xbox Live didn't LIKE you doing that and that you shouldn't play Xbox Live with a modded console! So when I signed up for Xbox Live, I UNmodded my Xbox. Been perfectly fine.

This is just one of those "duh" things people are upset about because it somehow infringes on their constitutional rights or something like that... It's like trying to play a game with a no-CD crack applied! You just can't play online. Sometimes you can, but mostly you can't, and it's just an accepted fact that you don't try. (If you do, bad things can happen, especially if there's a subscription involved.)

Honestly... these people are smart enough to mod their consoles without destroying them (except in the case of the Paper Mario thing), but they thought they were safe using Xbox Live? Heheh...

Man, there's a lot of news flying around that involves stupid people, isn't there? Stupid people blaming the company for what they did without regard to warnings.

Vista sells 40 million licenses in 100 days. [newlaunches.com]

Guess it's not doing nearly as badly as Slashdot and Digg users like to tell you. They also try to bring up the fact that might only be OEM licenses or bulk academic licenses for 6000 when the colleges only install maybe 100, and that retail sales aren't being released because they're not worth releasing. Pfft, whatever.

40 million licenses is 40 million licenses whether you use the license or not. Even if you go back to Windows XP, you still bought Vista, making it the fastest selling OS in history... silly anti-Microsofters.

Why Doesn't Microsoft Have a Cult Religion? [slashdot.org]

Apple has one. So does the Java community, Oracle, IBM, and Google. ... But does anyone really worship the Gods of Redmond?

Why? Because we're not insane.

So Microsoft is trying to make a service called "Windows Live" that is basically Xbox Live on Windows, providing a common platform for games to use for multiplayer. Microsoft is charging for this service. People are in an uproar because they're too stupid to go through all the facts properly... This is probably because Microsoft is involved.

Windows Live is going to provide, from what I can determine, a in-game messaging service, like Xbox Live, a gamertag system, like Xbox Live, and I'm sure will be used for automatically updating your games and possibly downloading demos and videos like you can on Xbox Live. In fact, it seems to be taking a lot of things from Xbox Live.

In fact... it IS Xbox Live! It's Xbox Live on Windows... It's not a separate service like everyone thinks it is, it's pretty much just access to the Xbox Live system from Windows and it supports PC games.

And guess what? You only have to pay ONCE. That's right! If you're already subscribed to Xbox Live, you automatically get to use Windows Live. Don't have a subscription to Xbox Live? Sign up for Windows Live and you automatically get Xbox Live! For 50 bucks... for an entire year. That's around 5 dollars a month, which you could probably save by not eating at McDonald's for one day every month. (I know it might be tough, bu I know you can do it.)

The point is... Stop crying about Windows Live's price. If you have Xbox Live, good! You'll have Windows Live, too, without any extra cost! If you don't have Xbox Live, you probably won't care about Windows Live in the first place. So seriously, folks... shut up. You're making yourselves look like uneducated, ignorant dorkwads.