iTunes crashed last night. Just froze, right out of the blue. Vista was perfectly functional underneath it, and I was able to use the desktop and the Start Menu like normal, but iTunes just sat there, frozen in time, eating 100% of my CPU when everything was idle. A process termination was in order. Just thought I'd throw that out...

Anyway, today, I start it back up? (Because it is the player I've organized my music for, sadly.) Up pops the good ol' 'A new version of iTunes (7.6) is available. Would you like to download it now?' I laugh at it and say 'heck, no! I'll take your little upgrade warning, but let you download it? You can't even do it properly!' So then I go 'you know, I want to read a changelog before I actually do any upgrading. With all the pointless iPhone crap and Leopard GUI updates you're rolling out, I probably don't want anything you have to offer.' I mean, I'm used to reading changelogs all the time... World of Warcraft pushes out a new patch? I read the entire thing because it's fun to do, and it's useful to know! Heck, even Windows Update tell you what it's patching and why, or at least gives you a link to a more in-depth discussion on it. What does Apple do? Absolutely nothing.

"Here's an update! Trust us, it's for your own good."

No changelog in the iTunes folder, no list of what's been changed on the website, nothing in About iTunes menu option or the file of the same name in the folder. Absolutely no reference to what they've done to their little piece of software that you rely on so much. Are they going to automatically detect whether or not you have an iPhone and disable the helper service accordingly? Are they going to give me some more control over how my playlists can be sorted? They're not going to tell me? Fool me twice, shame on me. There's some rudimentary changelog on Wikipedia, but it's nothing more than you can get off their site sometimes. "Improvement for the iPhone", sure... Yeah, I noticed that myself. I grew up playing Myst and Riven remember? I can notice the little Ringtones options that showed up during my last update. Precious little good it does me, though.

I think I'll pass... You know, I played with a latest generation Zune a few weeks ago and it was simply amazing. The interface was actually NOT annoying, with that inaccurate little spin-wheel that whizzes past whatever song entry you're trying to play, and the interface actually looks GOOD. (Have you seen the interfaces on the latest generation iPods? Ew, ew, ew, ew, ew... I certainly hope you can change the effect of having your screen split in half, showing song information on the left and album art on the right. That's just convoluted and distracting, I'm sorry.) Plus, and get this! The Zune/Windows Media Player/Windows Media Center combination works with my Xbox 360, with some of the coolest visualizations I've seen before. (Namely because all the visualizations on my computers are compromised by me always multitasking and robbing power from the rendering and slowing it down to being pointless...)

When my iPod dies... Hello, Microsoft Zune! I'm sick of Apple leading me around by the collar.

I read this article on Digg, but I didn't bother to mention it for some reason. But Tay brought something very interesting (and completely expected, when you think about it) in relation to it, so now I must mention it! In a very unexpected turn of events, it would seem that Internet Explorer 8 (yes, they're still cranking out IE. Did you think 7 was the last one?) is standards-compliant now. It would seem that IE8 passes what's called the Acid2 test. This is a good thing, right? Of course it is! It's what everyone's been asking for since IE6! Finally, Microsoft got something proper, this time! Anyone would agree! No more writing around IE's inherent flaws in rendering, and this time, if something shows up wrong, it's probably your code instead of IE8!

Actually, no. There's someone who doesn't agree. Of course there is.... There's always someone out there vocal enough and insane enough to say that even when Microsoft does what people want, it won't matter. People complain about something, Microsoft fixes it, and people just find something else to complain about. (Example: People complain about drivers smashing Windows XP and to get all that stuff out of the kernel. Windows Vista does that, but I think you can tell what people think about Vista. I'm waiting for Vista SP1 to come out so I can flaunt when people said they wouldn't touch Vista until it came out... You just know that it's only a front to dodge the shots that they have an inherent, inexplicable hate for Microsoft, and that they'll find someone else to complain about when SP1 arrives.)

This guy pulls random charts out of his bu-... Erm, ahem... Out of his website's logs, and attempts to prove that people won't use IE8 by showing that the majority of his visitors are predominantly Firefox and/or still IE6 users. That's right. He's using logs from his own blog that is all about technology. I highly doubt that the regular Joe who uses what browser Windows gives him will be visiting that site. Take my site, for example, even! Everyone I know uses Firefox or Safari. As far as I know, I'm the only one using Opera. Actually, here! I can post my Google Analytics logs, too:

As you can see, clearly, Firefox dominates, with IE at a distant second place. What does that mean? It means, quite simply, that the people who visit my site use Firefox the most. Generally speaking, the people who find my site most interesting also think that Firefox is best. My site isn't exactly a public necessity, now, is it? All this tells me if that my friends use Firefox the most. If you wanted to get a good idea of what browsers the general public used, you're going to have to ask Yahoo or Google or YouTube or MySpace or something that everyone uses. But let's take a closer look at the logs that tell me what version of Internet Explorer everyone uses, shall we?

Huh... Look at that. 63% of the visitors who use Internet Explorer are using the latest one. It's a bit of a wider gap than the logs the other guy pulled out, eh? For kicks, let's look at what versions of Firefox people are using!

Pretty much the same as the other guy's. 2.0.0.11 (wow, what a version, what is that? Major.Minor.Patch.what? What comes after Patch? Hotfix?) is the lead, of course, because it's the latest. But, hmm... Do you want to know why everyone upgraded Firefox? Is it because they're security conscious and want the latest little itty-bitty third-point release? Maybe! I'm going to bet, though, it's because Firefox pops up a window when you start it and it keeps bugging you to upgrade to the latest obscure version. You know, I'll also bet that if Internet Explorer did that, more people would upgrade, but... I'm also willing to bet that if Internet Explorer popped up an upgrade window like that, people would be extremely upset and complain that Microsoft is trying to cram upgrades down their throats. So, as it is, you have to run Windows Update and manually choose to install Internet Explorer 7, or download it from Microsoft.com.

My ultimate point is this:

Internet Explorer 8 passes standards. This is a very, very, very good thing for web designers. After so long of complaining to Microsoft that their program doesn't work the way it should, it finally does! However, there are people out there who, after complaining for so long, keep complaining because... Why? I don't think anyone really knows besides the fact that it's cool to whine about Microsoft. They'll pull out logs of their little bit of the internet and say "Look! Look! IE6 is still almost half of the market share! Here's the proof" when their tiny little site about the latest in-depth technological posts are probably going to attract people who are interested in that sort of stuff, and probably don't even use Windows in the first place.

It's the Browser Wars all over again, and I know people have their favorites. Mine, personally, is Opera, but I also use Firefox (my third choice), and Internet Explorer 7 (my second choice), and I keep them upgraded and I use them all for different purposes. (Safari, by the way, is installed, but I only use it to make sure my site shows up properly.) I'm just saying... Try to keep an open mind, will you? It's a good thing IE8 is standards-compliant, and some of you need to get off your soapbox for 5 seconds and give Microsoft some credit. (And stow the "about time" comments.) Ah, but that's a little too much to ask, isn't it... These are the same people want Microsoft to get more in tune with the general user, but they aren't willing to tell Microsoft about what they generally use their computer for. (Which, by the way, I asked anyone to tell me how else Microsoft could learn how to "get in touch" with the general user, but, as I predicted, I received no comments.)

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a room to finish cleaning for company tomorrow!

So it hit Digg a while ago that you could get a free copy of Windows Vista Ultimate, Office Ultimate '07, Money Plus Premium, Encarta Premium or Streets and Trips just by filling out a survey and installing an application that monitors how you use your computer.

I'm sure that everyone reading this right now has red flag popping up in their brains. "Microsoft watching me?! More than they already do with Windows alone?! THE NERVE!!"

Honest question for you guys. Did you even read the FAQs and such? They tell you what they're going to monitor. It checks to see how you use Microsoft products, it checks Windows settings, number of users on the system, various Control Panel settings. Hardware details... Processor, RAM, and so forth. Information about (not information in) files in common storage places, such as how many things you're actually storing in My Documents. The programs you run, and problems you encounter. They say they don't intentionally read identification information, such as passwords. But, in all honesty, with the massive uproar whenever something like this comes up, will someone mind telling me how Microsoft is actually going to use your password and compromise your security? They're going to send a representative to act as your friend long enough for you to feel safe handing your laptop over to him so he can finally use your password? I also stand next to my view that if you store credit card and banking information in plain-text form on your computer, then you almost deserve someone to steal it.

So this is all with the intent of learning how to improve Windows. You know what that is, I'm sure, because every outspoken malcontent whines about how Microsoft should fix their products and get more in tune with what people actually want today. Well... This is their answer, and all you can do is scream "bloody murder!" about privacy issues? Seriously, how else is Microsoft supposed to find out what you use Windows for? Do you think they should hire about a thousand people to sit in a big room with telephones and wait for people to call in with their input?

You call, again and again, for Microsoft to get their act together, and when they think of a way to do that, you trip over each other to be the first to call out PRIVACY VIOLATION, when they haven't even DONE anything, yet. (Or you just take a cheap jab and say there's nothing they could learn that they don't already have access to. Oh, very witty of you.)

I'll probably get... no comments, but I'm going to pose the question anyway. How do you think Microsoft should get a feel for what the market is like, when they have such a massive market share? Let's be reasonable, too. Something that could actually be done. Something like random visits just... isn't going to cut it. Is there anything better that they could do? Anything better than installing an application that literally watches you do work? How else are they going to know what the modern market wants to do?

Since I know they're going to be brought up, please don't say something about "well, Apple knows what their market wants just fine without spying" or "Linux knows what people want". That may be the case, but, face it. They're incredibly small market shares. Apple and Linux know what their market wants pretty much because their market already likes what Apple and Linux was doing in the first place. There was no adaptation to be done. Actually, go ahead and say that if you want, but don't bother unless you can explain how Apple and Linux knows what their market wants. "They just do", for example, isn't going to cut it.

All that being said, I want to say that I was completely and totally prepared to apply for this Microsoft "spy app". I mean, hey! I enjoy Vista immensely. What could be better than getting a free copy of Ultimate for letting a program watch what windows I open? As long as I know it's there, I'll make a point of not doing anything deadly secretive while it's there. (You know, all those CIA reports I have to write up... Can't let anyone get their hands on those, right?) But, sadly, the free software promotional ended yesterday, I believe, and now there's no incentive, so I'm not going to do it.

And here is where someone's going to say "aha! You're calling us out for not wanting to run the test when not even you are going to?" No... No, I wasn't calling you out for not wanting to run the test. I was calling you out for exploding over the "privacy violation" of this test... I was calling you out for acting like you had no choice in the matter and that Microsoft has no right learning what it might, possibly, without-sure-proof, learn what it might. I'm calling you out for wanting Microsoft to make their products better, but being too paranoid and anti-Microsoft at heart to take this as an opportunity to put your money where your mouth is.

If you don't want to participate, fine. But is there a better way to get what you've been wanting Microsoft to do for so long? For Microsoft to know what you want, you're going to have to tell them somehow, and this is one of those ways.

(PS - For the record, I would like to think that I would defend any company who does this. Apple, Microsoft, Sony, Blizzard, or otherwise. Granted, it's pretty obvious that I'm a little biased toward Microsoft, but I'd still like to believe that my leaning away from anyone wouldn't prevent me from seeing this the same way had, say, Apple wanted to install a program and monitor your activities and all the Apple users were upset. (Yes, I know, Apple would never do such a thing.))

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.

I found another Leopard gem. Sorry, but after getting so much flak from people because I bought Vista, I enjoy these articles very much. Especially when they show up on Slashdot. (Although the comments are more along the lines of, "Ah, Apple will fix it, no problem", but with Microsoft it's "Haha! M$ r luzers and ned to be purged from society for this clear violation of... I don't know, but they violated something!")

Basically, the problem is when you move a folder from one Leopard machine to any remote or removable drive, there's a high chance of data loss. If you unplug the target drive before it's finished moving, you'll lose both copies. How any OS can consider doing that is insane... Is it a Unix thing? Making it an immaculate choice on behalf of the free peoples of the Open Source community? Is it a Mac thing? Making it an immaculate choice on behalf of all cultured anti-Microsoft antagonists? Windows preserves the source data until after the target data has been successfully written. It always has! At least in the versions I've used, and I know it does this in XP and Vista, because it's happened before! Move a file... Network goes down. Movement doesn't complete, you get an error, and... What next, you ask? Well, you fix the problem and start again! Because the file you were moving is stiiiiiill there. This is quite clear in my mind, because I moved a massive file I'd downloaded over the network from one Windows machine to another, and the destination drive got full, and my heart sunk because I was sure it had erased the source file, but nope! It didn't, and before you say that such an error isn't a catastrophic error and that it must be handled, well, let me tell you, with a hard drive I use being inside the family computer, every now and then, someone will reboot while I'm moving a file... If that's not considered a catastrophic error of the destination, dropping off the face of the network without any warning, then I don't know what is.

Now... If you can, imagine how the world would react if Windows did this. I know I can.

I honestly don't go out of my way to dig this stuff up... Personally, I like Windows. It suits my needs. I'm a gamer and I wouldn't use another OS until one gets the stuff I want to use. As it stands right now, nothing else offers anything I need. (With the exception of Debian Linux, which I use as a router.) I use what I use, you use what you use, there are pros and cons to each thing, and the more people that understand that, the better! Someone else uses Mac, it suits theirs needs... Someone else uses Linux, it suits their needs...

That being said, when I come across something like this, I have to make a post! By Wired, an article entitled "Best of Leopard Is Yet to Come: Innovative Third-Party Apps". I'm not really aiming to be anti-Mac here, more of a... "Are people really trying to push Macs so hard that they resort to articles like this? Isn't there anything else you could be talking about?" (No? Like... No huge changes to make note of? Time Machine, maybe? Hmm... You mean... Mac finally has a version of Windows System Restore? That Microsoft feature that's been around since Windows ME?) This is like saying "Best of Vista Is Yet to Come: DirectX 10 Apps". Oh wait... People call that a superfluous argument and a marketing gimmick. (Okay, so I guess I am being a bit anti-Mac.)

But it's pretty much "hey! You know what's awesome? Leopard! But you know what's even more awesome? The programs that are going to come out on it, yay!" Well, WOW! What a revolutionary statement! Geez, I'm taken aback here. You mean people buy operating systems to use... programs made by people OTHER THAN THE PEOPLE WHO MADE THE OPERATING SYSTEM? Lunacy! Blasphemy! The very fabric of reality begins ripping to shreds by the mere fleeting thought of such a thing! Oops, wait, I lied...

I would sure as heck hope Leopard's going to get third-party applications. What use would an OS be if you could only run Apple products? Or Microsoft products? That would be the world in which Linux would flourish! This is like saying... "The best of living is yet to come! YOU GET TO EAT!" Seems to be just a silly, needlessly "GET A MAC" write up with no substance. I would personally expect third-party apps. That's no sale point... It's EXPECTED. You shouldn't have to go around and say "you should buy us because we let you write your own programs!"

Sorry, yes, I know how to spell the word leopard, but in a Slashdot article I read (I'll spare the guy any direct ridicule...), someone was so excited about his copy of Mac OS X "Leapoard" in the mail and how he was looking forward to install it when he got home. Geez, man... Learn to spell your idol operating system.

Anyway, in the wake of the news of the (delayed) release of Leopard and how simply amazing it is that it's surpassing 2 million sold copies (indeed, I'm sure that all 2 million Apple users would go out and buy it... Maybe even twice! How is this amazing? Tsk tsk), I thought I'd toss out this little gem:

"A Second Look at the Mac OS X Leopard Firewall"

Looks like Apple messed up! But according to Slashdot... hey, you can't expect Apple to get everything correct, right? Heheheh... Indeed. Can you imagine the reaction if Microsoft did that? Oh, wait! If you're old enough to remember the pre-SP2 releases of Windows XP? The firewall had trouble and Microsoft got charred over it. Now Apple's firewall doesn't block incoming traffic properly (like, the entire reason you would even want a firewall) and everyone's going "pfft, a minor mistake."

Honestly, it's like dealing with left-wing liberals. Not to be saying that all Macintosh users are like left-wing liberals... Two people that come to mind (who aren't crazy, I mean) are Capella and Iaian7. Pretty much the only two Mac users I know personally. (If we "fight", it's all in good fun.) But like they say, the most outspoken people are usually the most crazy... And I'm sure the majority of Mac users have a good head on their shoulder and aren't rabid and ignorant like the Slashdot and Digg environment is.