Zone Alarm and Windows 7 64 Bit

Image via CrunchBase

I recently replaced my 2006 PC with a new model that runs the 64 bit version of Windows 7. When I tried to install Zone Alarm the installation locked up my PC and then it kept locking up when I tried to restart it. Apparently the software had managed to damage the system in some way.

The solution is a bit annoying, but works:

Step 1: Reboot into safe mode.

Step 2: Complete the installation.

Step 3: Uninstall the software.

Step 4: Reboot.

I’m still trying to find a decent firewall for Windows 7, but the ones I looked at were not yet 64 bit compatible. Fortunately, Windows own firewall is compatible.

Windows 7

Image via CrunchBase

While I did attend a very nice Windows 7 launch party, I’m still running XP on my main PC and OS X on my iBook (with Windows 2000 running nicely in emulation). I do have Vista on a laptop, but only because it came with Vista and I could never quit muster up the gumption for a downgrade to XP.  Interestingly, though I have used it the least of any computer I own, it has thrown up the most blue screens of death. But, to get back to Windows 7.

My desktop PC (a repair job based on the burned out shell of a friend’s “one fan short” computer) is running XP Pro quite nicely. While I am more of a Mac person, I find XP Pro with Service Pack 3 to be fairly stable and good with resources (of course, it was released almost a decade ago). Most importantly, it does everything that I need an OS to do-that is, it allows me to run the software I use without too much trouble. When Vista was spawned to torment the world, I passed because I saw no compelling reason to “upgrade” to a annoying resource hog. I do not regret that at all.

When Windows 7 was announced, I knew that I would probably have to use it eventually-after all, my PC is reaching the end of its expected life. However, I also knew that I would not be shelling out money for an upgrade. Rather, I figured I would just buy a new PC after Microsoft got around to beating some of the worst bugs out of Windows 7.

Based on my limited experience and research on Windows 7, it seems to be roughly a service pack of Vista. That is, it is basically Vista that works a bit better: it is less annoying, a bit faster, and hogs slightly less resources. However, there seems to be nothing compelling about it-beyond the fact that Microsoft has discontinued XP and soon it will be the only real Windows game in town.

While Windows 7 has some nifty interface features, I can honestly do without them or, if I must have them, I can find some third party freeware to do the same thing. Of course, my view of an OS is to take it as a metaphor for a worktable-it is there to provide the foundation on which I work, not to be getting in my way with fancy features. I am, however, concerned with security and stability. Not surprisingly, I rather like Linux.

Like many people, I find Microsoft’s multiple versions of Windows to be annoying. I rather like Apple‘s approach: have one OS for consumers and a server OS. Don’t have numerous versions that seem to differ only in fairly minor ways (other than cost). Presumably Microsoft thinks that it can make more money with all these versions and perhaps this is correct. When I do buy a new PC, I’ll shop for the best hardware deal and then probably just deal with whatever version of Windows 7 is on there. I’d take a stab at sorting out all the different versions, but that should be something Microsoft makes clear. Fortunately, someone has taken the effort for me.

If you have an XP machine and are happy with it, then it makes sense to just stick with it until it dies. While it might be able to run Windows 7, it makes more sense to use the money for an upgrade and put it towards a new PC. After all, some new PCs are priced close to the cost of a full version Windows 7.

If you have a Vista machine, then you might be eligible for a free upgrade to Windows 7. If you bought your PC on or after July 1, 2009 then you are probably in luck. If you bought before then, then you will need to buy an upgrade. If you are a student, then you can get the upgrade for $29.99.

Of course, my view is that Microsoft should issue a free upgrade to all Vista users as an apology for that mess. At the very least, they should allow them that $30 deal.

Snow Leopard Eats Data

Image via Wikipedia

When I bought my second Mac, a Classic II, it came with the then cutting edge System 7. Unfortunately, that cutting edge cut right through my files-it had a nasty vanishing file problem. One of the files that was lost was part of my qualifier for my dissertation (basically a big pre-dissertation paper), so I was not very happy about that. I had backed up the files to floppies, but they were also apparently affected as well. Luckily I had printed a hard copy. The folks at the campus store got the patch to fix this fairly quickly (this was back in the days before the web) and that solved the problem.

Apparently, history has repeated itself. Apples latest operating system, Snow Leopard, has a nasty bug that supposedly deletes users data. While I did update my 2004 iBook G4 to 10.5, the lukewarm praise for 10.6 motivated me to not be motivated to buy the upgrade.

Since Apple pitches their Mac by comparing them to the problem infested PCs, this sort of problem is both serious and ironic. I’m sure Apple will have a patch out soon for it, but it is the sort of thing that should not happen in the first place. It is, of course, yet another example of why you should always back up your data.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Account details lost in Snow Leopard bug (netnewsdaily.com)

Beating those Broadband Blues

Image via CrunchBase

I run into broadband connection problems fairly regularly. Some of the causes relate to the fact that I’m stuck with Comcast, the cable infrastructure here is from the 1980s, and the area around me has been recently developed into student housing complxes (thus adding to the load on the system). Howver, I do run into problems on my end as well. I’m sure you do, too. This guide is for Windows XP. If you are using Vista, my condolences.

If you find that your connection is not working or has stopped working, here are some steps to take. Try one and then move on to the next.

• Make sure your modem and router are actually on. Checking the cables is also a good idea. Make sure they are all properly plugged in and not loose. Also, check to make sure that the modem indicates (most modems have a cable light) that the cable is actually working-sometimes it goes out.
• Go to Control Panels and open Network Connections. Right click your connection (most likely called “Local Area Connection”) and select repair. After it is done, check to see if you are connected. If that doesn’t work, go to the next method.
• Go to Start and select Run. In the text field beside “Open:” type netsh winsock reset and hit okay. A DOS style window will  appear and hopefully your connection will be restored. If that doesn’t work, try the next method.
• Go to Start and select Run. In the text field beside “Open:” type ipconfig /release and hit okay. A DOS style window will  appear as your IP address is released. Now, go to Start and select Run. In the text field beside “Open:” type ipconfig /renew and hit okay. A DOS style window will  appear as your IP address is renewed. If that doesn’t work, go to the next method.
• Power your modem and router off, wait about 30 second and then turn them back on. If that does not work, hit the reset button on your router. If that doesn’t work, remove all the cables from the cable modem (power, ethernet and cable) and unplug the power to your router. Wait 30-60 seconds and then plug the cables back into the modem. Then plug your router back in.

If your connection is still not working, you are on your own. Good luck talking to your ISP.

More on Chrome

Image via Wikipedia

Like all sensible Windows users, my PC has several anti-malware programs. I have two firewalls (ZoneAlarm and the Windows XP one), a dedicated antivirus, several anti-spyware programs, root kit removers, programs for assessing the processes that I am running, and so on. My browser has custom security settings and various add-ons to combat nasty scripts and such. Windows itself has more patches on it than a hobo’s jacket. In short, my computer has a massive defense system that I have cobbled together. It would, of course, be nice to not have to deal with all this stuff-it clogs up the memory and robs my PC’s CPU. Plus, there is the worry that some new malware will manage to get through and do bad things. Google promises that its Chrome OS will do away with all this. Allegedly, “users don’t have to deal with viruses, malware and security updates.” While that is a wonderful promise, cam Google deliver?

One thing that indicates that Google might not be able to do so is the fact that the Chrome browser and Googles other software are not immune to malmare (technically, viruses are now considered malware). Of course, Google can point a finger at the other operating systems that their programs run under and cast some (but obviously not all) blame on them. If Google controls the whole OS, then perhaps they can create that perfect system.

Google can, of course, do many things to make their OS resistant. First, they are building Chrome on Linux and that provides them with a well researched base from which to begin. They can avail themselves of all the work that has been done securing Linux-thus starting out with a “new” OS that is well grounded on years of development by many private and public organizations. Second, by basing Chrome on Linux they gain the same sort of defense that Apple enjoys-fewer users means fewer efforts made to create malware. Of course, if Chrome becomes big, we can expect a surge in malware development for Linux. However, even combining all existing versions of Linux together, they hardly make a dent in Windows’ empire of domination.

Second, Chrome can make use of various security methods that will help a great deal. For example, Chrome can severely limit what the OS can and cannot do, thus reducing the sort of damage that malware can do. Windows Vista tried to do this via a rather annoying system and Google will need to make its security system both more effective and less annoying than that of Vista. Chrome also might make use of virtual computers to handle risky tasks, thus sandboxing  some malware and keeping their damage in check. Of course, this would also have to be implemented in an effective and easy to use way.

Third, despite all the hype about being a Windows killer, Chrome seems to be aimed at providing cloud computing on netbooks. By limiting the purpose of the OS relative to the “do it all” Windows, perhaps Google can have a much more secure system. Of course, this would seem to limit Chrome’s appeal and its market share. After all, most users are not using netbooks and the cloud is still mainly, well, a puffy cloud of ideas and dreams.

While Google can make a secure OS, the dream that users will not need to worry about malware will most likely remain just a dream. After all, the OS has to run programs and that makes it possible for malware to run. After all, they are programs as well. Writing into the OS code a way to prevent every possible malware operation seems to be an impossibility. No doubt some clever mathematical wizard can work out some law or formula that expresses this fact. Adding to the challenge is that some malware is not distinguished by its code, but by its purposes. For example, a program that downloads files to your PC from the net can be beneficial (your software checking automatically for updates) or malicious (malware downloading even more malware).

Another factor ensuring that Chrome will not be malware immune is the fact that people make mistakes and do not foresee everything. As such, it is certain that there will be vulnerabilities and exploitable parts of the Chrome code. After all, almost anything that a user must be able to do can be something exploitable.  The only perfectly secure OS would be one that did nothing at all.

My view, at least until Google proves me wrong, is that Chrome will have vulnerabilities and will need patches. After all, unless Google has God coding for them, there will be imperfections in Chrome and that means vulnerabilities.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Google to launch operating system (news.bbc.co.uk)
• Google’s charge (news.bbc.co.uk)
• Android, Chrome OS differ over voice communications (computerworld.com)
• Google polishes Chrome into netbook OS (theregister.co.uk)
• Google Drops A Nuclear Bomb On Microsoft. And It’s Made of Chrome. (techcrunch.com)
• PC makers mum about Chrome OS (news.cnet.com)
• Google’s ‘War’ With Microsoft is a Shell Game (gawker.com)
• Google announces Google Chrome Operating System (seattlepi.com)
• Chrome OS for the clueless: What it means for real people (news.cnet.com)
• Chrome OS: Google Takes on Microsoft (blippitt.com)
• Chrome OS: But Will it Run Photoshop? (mashable.com)

Chrome

Image via Wikipedia

Google announced that it would be developing its own open source operating system. In a slightly confusing move, the OS will have the same name as the Google web browser, namely “Chrome.”

While the news of Google’s OS has been getting considerable attention, the idea of a Linux based OS with a special emphasis on the web (that is, cloud computing) is not new. Good OS (or gOS) is already on version three. It is essentially Ubuntu Linux with the addition of Google gadgets, plus a lot of talk about cloud computing. Of course, Google is a huge company and enjoys considerable influence. As such its Chrome might have an impact on Windows.

Of course, Google has tried to go up against Microsoft by offering a suite of programs as rivals to Office. So far, Microsoft has had nothing to really worry about. Also, the Chrome OS seems to be aimed mainly at netbooks. While this market has been hot, there is the possibility that it will cool down. More importantly, netbooks are something of a niche-most users (especially business users) use and most likely will keep using desktops and laptops. However, I must admit that I rather like my netbook and recommend them to people who need a light, small and capable computer. Of course, Windows XP recently replaced Linux as the normal install in many netbooks and it will be hard for Google to push Microsoft out and its Linux back in.

If Google is going to make a significant advance against Microsoft, they will need to get Chrome to the good things Windows allows users to do (like run a top office suite) while avoiding the problems of Windows. If they can make an OS that does all they claim it will do, I will probably install it on my netbook, but as a boot option rather than my only OS. After all, I’m not sold on cloud computing, most software I rely on is Windows or Mac based, and I don’t see Chrome being able to properly run Windows games.

Even if Google’s Chrome is not a Windows killer, the entry of Google into the OS business should impact the development of Windows. That is, Microsoft will most likely copy many features of Chrome into the next version of Windows (8 or whatever they call it) or implement them via add ons or Internet Explorer in Windows 7.

Related articles by Zemanta

• The Google OS Becomes Reality: Google Announces the Google Chrome OS (readwriteweb.com)
• Google Drops A Nuclear Bomb On Microsoft. And It’s Made of Chrome. (techcrunch.com)
• Google OS to challenge Microsoft’s turf (money.cnn.com)
• Google targets Microsoft with new operating system (guardian.co.uk)

Windows 7

Image via Wikipedia

While Windows 7 is not due to hit the shelves until late October, Microsoft is offering a deal to people who pre-order upgrades now. At this time, owners of XP and Vista can buy an upgrade to Windows 7 Home for $49 and the Professional version for $99. People who bought a Vista PC recently can (or might) qualify for a free upgrade.

While this is cheaper than the usual Microsoft pricing options, there are some problems. The first is that there is, as of yet, no special price for updating to the Ultimate Version. So, if you have Vista Ultimate on your PC, then you must either pony up the full upgrade price or settle for a downgrade to get the “special” pricing. Also, if you do downgrade from Vista Ultimate to Windows 7 Pro or Home, then you’ll need to do a clean install. An upgrade that upgrades (Home to Pro) or stays the same (Home to Home or Pro to Pro) allows (in theory) an in place upgrade. The second problem is that Microsoft’s special price for the Pro version is only about $30 less than the price of a full version of Mac OS X (and you can buy a family license for up to 5 computers for slightly more). I’m not a big fan of Microsoft’s multiple versions approach nor of the significant price differences. Apple is much nicer to its customers: one (non-server) OS and one price, with an excellent deal for multiple licenses. Of course, Apple does charge a premium for its hardware, so I suppose they can be more generous with their OS. That is one reason why I have a PC (I really can’t justify buying  a Mac Pro). The other is that most PC games are for Windows.

I don’t plan on upgrading since my desktop PC is rather old (it is running XP Pro). Instead, I’ll just replace it in December (I want to give Microsoft at least two months to crank out the inevitable patches and fixes). After all, $100 is a good chunk of the price of a mid-range PC these days. Throw in the annoyance cost of upgrading an older PC (driver problems and so on) and it makes little sense to do anything but buy a new PC (or just not upgrade at all).

I do have a Asus EEEPC that is running XP. I did almost consider spending the $50 to get the home version, but that is $50 spent now and I wouldn’t get the software for months. Plus, it works fine-so why risk screwing that up? After all, I got it to be a simple, reliable laptop for travel and work.

Now, if you have been trying the Windows 7 beta and love it, then it could be worth it to do the early purchase. Especially if your current PC is under the cruel domination of Vista.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Some Vista users say they’re getting the Ultimate shaft (news.cnet.com)
• Windows 7 may get a ‘Family Pack’ (news.cnet.com)
• Not Everyone Is Happy With Windows 7 Upgrade Prices – Especially Ultimate Users! (lockergnome.com)

A Look at the Asus EEE PC 1000HE

Asus EEE PC 1000H

Last summer I bought an Asus EEE PC 4G and was generally pleased with the tiny laptop. However, there were three things that I thought needed improvement: the keyboard, the screen, and storage. In each case, my thought was that they could be a bit larger (but not too large-after all, the main appeal of the EEE PC netbooks is their small size). The EEE PC 1000H provides those improvements and more-and for only a bit more than I paid for my first EEE PC.

The main virtue of the EEE PC 1000 H is its small size and light weight. While it is larger than my 4G, it is considerably smaller and lighter than my iBook (dimensions and weight are given below). In practical terms, it fits easily into my rather over-stuffed backpack and does not add noticeably to its weight.  Naturally, if small size is of critical importance, Asus does make even smaller netbooks, such as the 4G and more recent versions.

While small size is important, it is really not very useful to have a PC that is too small to use comfortably. While my 4G was quite usable, the 1000H is, from my standpoint, an ideal size. The keyboard is smaller than that of a typical laptop, but the key design and size allows for easy typing-much more so than the 4G. With the 4G I tended to just use one finger typing. With the 1000h I can type normally. The screen is also larger, allowing for easier viewing of documents. Of course, with a height of only 600 it does still impose some limits. I found the screen to be high quality-sharp and responsive. There is also a VGA output, in case you want to attach it to an external monitor.

My 4G had a 4 GB SSD drive while my 1000H has a 160 GB HD. The downside of the standard harddrive is that it has moving parts and is a bit slower in booting up relative to the SSD. On the plus side, it has far greater capacity. The 4GB on the 4G was enough for the Linux OS and the base applications, but I had to rely on SD cards and USB keys for extra storage. The 1000H does have the SD reader and plenty of USB ports, but it has considerable storage space. Oddly, the hard drive is partitioned and mounts as two volumes (there are are also hidden volumes as well).

While I did not buy a netbook for speed, my 1000H is quite responsive, even running Windows XP. I did not try any recent games, but it runs Starcraft and Diablo II just fine. Microsoft Office was also quite snappy. Overall, most users will find it quite adequate for their needs. Obviously, if you ant to play the latest games or edit video, you will want a laptop with more power. But, it does give a lot of power for the cost.

For a low price netbook, it does pack in quite a few extras that you’d expect to only see on something a bit higher up the food chain. These include ethernet, multiple USB 2.0 ports, wireless N, and bluetooth. Everything worked well-it connected to my wireless N network without a hitch. I’m not a big fan of Bluetooth, but it is nice to have that option.

It ships with fairly minimal software-mostly just the OS, some very basic utilities and a trial of Office 2007. I actually see this a plus-I hate pulling crapware off my PC and would rather have a nice, clean system. I did consider installing Ubuntu, but decided to stick with XP so I could run Office, Starcraft, Diablo II, and my windows based grading program. Yes, I could probably get everything going in WINE, but I decided to just keep things simple. Besides, my 4G is running Linux.

Asus claims that the battery will last for 9.5 hours. I haven’t put that to the test, but it is nice to have long battery life. After all, the main point of getting a netbook is so you can easily have it with you. Good battery life is part of this.

Mine came with a basic soft case, but I bought a more robust one. If you plan to toss your’s into a backpack or travel with it, I’d suggest a case upgrade.

Although my quadriceps tendon repair surgery has left me unable to travel for a while, I think that the 1000H will be a great travel machine. It is light and compact, yet a very capable laptop. Assuming the battery life claims are accurate, it should keep me busy on any flights that I take.

Overall, the 1000H is an excellent little machine. If you are looking for a travel laptop, an inexpensive laptop, or one to use at school, this is a great choice. I plan to use mine for both travel (once I can travel again) and at school. My backpack always seems to be packed with notes, student papers, records, my lunch, a water bottle and various other things-so small and light netbook is ideal. I did like my 4G a great deal, but it was just a bit too small for typing and easily entering grades. Hence, I mainly just used it when travelling. But, the 1000H is as comfortable to use as a normal laptop and hence I plan to get much more use from it.

So, should you get one? My experience has been that most people tend to over buy when it comes to laptops. That is, they get a machine that far exceeds their needs. After all, surfing the web, doing an email and doing word processing do not take that much power. The 1000H provides more than enough power to do all that and at a very low price (well under $400). Naturally, I’d suggest trying one in person to see if you like the keyboard and screen size; but I think that most people will rather like this machine.

Specifications:

Screen: 10” LED Backlight WSVGA screen (1024×600)
CPU: Intel CPU & Chipset Intel® Atom N270/N280
Wireless: Wireless Data Network WLAN 802.11b/g/n
Bluetooth: 2.1 + EDR
Memory:  1GB (DDR2)-single chip, must be replaced to upgrade
Hard Drive: 160GB HDDs and customized software free for downloads to enhance your experience!
Camera :  1.3M Pixel
Audio : Stereo, Mic
Input / Output:  1 x VGA Port (D-sub 15-pin for external monitor), 3 x USB 2.0, 1 x LAN RJ-452 x Audio Jack (Head Phone / Mic-in)
Card Reader: MMC/ SD(SDHC)
Battery:  6-Cell Li-ion Battery-9.5 hours claimed life.
Dimensions: 266mm(W) x 191.2mm(D) x 28.5mm~ 38mm(H)
Weight: 1.45 kg