Already planning for the final release of Windows 7 and not yet sure which edition of the OS to get for your primary system? With the beta it was easy: everybody gets Ultimate (NOTE: As with the beta, the Windows 7 RC will install Ultimate by default. If you want to install a different edition, you’ll need to follow the procedure here: How to Install Any Windows 7 Release Candidate Edition.

But when the new OS actually goes on the market, it will come in six different editions. If you’re a home user, you aren’t going to be using Enterprise edition because it’s only available to companies with volume licensing plans. You can also pretty much discount Starter edition, which will come installed on low-end low-cost netbooks and will only run three applications at a time (NOTE: this limit isn’t quite as bad as it sounds; see Ed Bott’s article Living with the Limits of Windows 7 Starter Edition to find out which programs don’t count toward that three-app quota).

Home Basic edition will be offered only in “emerging markets,” so that cuts it out of the running for those who live in the U.S., western Europe, Australia, etc.

That leaves you with only three viable choices:

• Home Premium: recommended for consumers; supports Aero, Touch, includes Windows Media Center)
• Professional: roughly equivalent to Business Edition in Vista, recommended for small businesses and telecommuters (adds Remote Desktop host service, Mobility Center, offline folders, Presentation mode, can join a Windows domain)
• Ultimate: recommended for “PC enthusiasts.” (Adds Bitlocker, ability to boot from a virtual drive, Direct Access)

Although pricing hasn’t been announced yet, we can assume the differences between the editions will be similar to the Vista pricing structure (perhaps $40 additional for each subsequent edition).

You might conclude that if you’re a home user, Home Premium is your best bet. I recommend that you spend the extra bucks and go for Pro, instead. The Remote Desktop service alone is worth the price; you’ll be able to set up your Win 7 Pro machine as a RDP host and connect to its desktop from other machines on your home network (including those running Home editions of XP and Vista – those systems support the RDP client, but not the host service).

And if you’re using a 64 bit version of Windows 7 (and you should be, if you’re a power user), there’s another reason to splurge on Pro: according to Adrian Kingsley-Hughes’ post titled Max Memory Limits for 64 bit Windows 7, Home Premium will only support 16 GB of RAM. Pro (along with Enterprise and Ultimate) supports a whopping 192 GB.  That’s a heck of a difference. You might think you would never need more than 16 GB of memory, but don’t forget Bill Gates’ infamous statement that “640K ought to be enough for anybody.”  The need for extra memory often comes about before the need for a new OS, and already there are desktop computer motherboards that can support 24 GB of RAM. It almost always pays to plan for as much expansion as possible when it comes to memory.

Well then, should you spend another forty bucks for Ultimate? If you have plenty of extra cash, why not? Certainly BitLocker, and especially the new BitLocker to go, offers a big security advantage. And if you’re going to use your own computer to connect to your corporate network, DirectAccess can make it easier and more secure. Some home users will also appreciate the ability to boot from a virtual hard drive (VHD file). But if you’re looking to save a few dollars, Pro will probably fulfill all the needs of the majority of non-corporate users.

deb@shinder.net    www.debshinder.com

This isn’t the first time Google’s Chrome web browser has been found to suffer from security vulnerabilities, but this one is particularly nasty in that it can put you at risk even if you aren’t using Chrome (if you have it installed). There are no doubt many people out there who downloaded Chrome to try it out and then went back to IE (I was one of them – but since then I’ve installed a new operating system and didn’t bother to install Chrome this time).

Here’s the problem: If you visit the attacker’s web page using Internet Explorer, but you have Chrome installed, this universal cross-site scripting attack can cause Chrome to launch, open up multiple tabs and load malicious scripts.

If you have Chrome, update to version 1.0.154.59 to fix this vulnerability. You can read more here: http://blog.watchfire.com/wfblog/2009/04/google-chrome-universal-xss-vulnerability-.html

deb@shinder.net   www.debshinder.com

Twitter fans now have a site where you can analyze your own or someone else’s “Twitter personality” at http://twanalyst.com.   I was a bit taken aback to see that I was labeled both “likeable” and “vain.”  Almost all of my Twitter posts are about technology so why “vain?”  Then I started “twanalyzing” the accounts of other people I know, and found a common thread: If you have a large number of followers relative to the number of people you follow, you’re considered “vain.”  I have 149 followers and only follow 13. My friend Bill Detwiler has 306 followers and only follows 12, and is also considered “vain.” The same pattern seems to hold. Hmmm. I would have preferred the label “discriminating.”  If you have a very large number of followers, though (seems to be over 500) but don’t follow many of them back, then you become a “guru.”

I also noticed that all those who have a very high number of followers (including one friend with 2151 and one with 860) are labeled “renowned.” This seems to kick in when you have more than 500 followers. If you have between 100 and 300, you’re “likeable” and 300 to 500 makes you “popular.” Those with huge numbers of followers are “celebrities.”

If you post lots of links, you’re labeled a “sharer.” Since most of my tweets contain links to my new articles, I got that appellation.  However, I didn’t have a high enough proportion of links to other info to make me a “robot.” 

 
Twanalyst

Be careful about retweeting a lot; you’ll get labeled a “parrot.” And if you mainly engage in direct conversations (lots of @ posts), you become known as a “socialite.” Don’t tweet much at all? Twanalyzer will conclude that you’re a “lurker.”

I’d take Twanalyzer’s personality and style analyses with a grain of salt, along with their recommendations for “improving” your tweets. The latter section admonished me with such nuggets of wisdom as “the more people you follow, the more followers you’ll get in return” and “why not follow more people back to get a dialogue going?”  I don’t use Twitter with the goal of getting dialogues going; I use it to let people know when I publish a new article or to provide the readers of my newsletters and articles with links to additional information on topics I’ve addressed recently.

What is useful about Twanalyst, though, is the top section of the analysis that gives you the actual numbers: how many tweets you average per day, your “readability index,” and percentage of links to original content.

Note that you can only “twanalyze” the accounts of people who have their settings configured to show on the public timeline. If a person has configured “protected updates,” even if you’re one of his/her followers, you won’t be able to twanalyze the account.

deb@shinder.net    www.debshinder.com

Twitter – a venue for malware? How could that be? Well, a recent worm created by Twitter user “Mikeyy” proved that the microblogging service presents attackers with one more method for spreading malicious code. It exploits a cross-site scripting vulnerability, and the author – who, according to some reports, is 17 years old – claims to have created it “out of boredom.” The worm propagates by sending a URL that takes users to a web site where their profiles are infected, causing them to in turn send the same URL to their own contacts.

Now it appears that other attackers are following suit and spreading their own malicious links via Twitter. And was the original malware author punished for his deeds? Actually, it seems he was rewarded with a job offer instead. Now there’s a deterrent.

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/Twitter-and-Celebrities-Hit-By-More-Mikeyy-Worms-271396/ 

deb@shinder.net    www.debshinder.com

In last week’s VistaNews editorial, I ranted a bit about the advantages of using the right tool for the job. Some folks took issue with my statement that Excel is a spreadsheet program and spreadsheets are designed for dealing with numbers, not big chunks of text data, but I stand by it. Spreadsheets were created to emulate bookkeeping ledgers, after all.

This week, I started thinking about how this “right tool for the job” thing applies to social networking tools. Recently I’ve heard many complaints (from Facebook users) about the linking of Twitter accounts to Facebook. They’re saying things like “If I want to read your tweets, I’ll follow you on Twitter.” Some are going so far as to say that they plan to “unfriend” their friends whose Twitter posts show up on Facebook.

My first reaction was: what’s the big deal? It’s easier to read a friend’s posts all in the same place, in my Facebook stream, than to have to go to a separate site (Twitter) to see them.

Then I started thinking about how I use the two services. I do have my Twitter account linked to my Facebook profile. When I “tweet,” it shows up as a new status message on FB. My tweets are almost all about articles I’m working on or have just finished, or occasionally links to excellent tech-related articles I’ve read. In short, I use Twitter pretty much as a promotional tool for my IT writing.

Many of my FB “friends” are in the IT business, too, or they’re readers of my newsletters. So I figure they’re at least somewhat interested in what I’m publishing. For a good bit, I was duplicating effort by posting the same things to my FB status as what I’d just “tweeted.” I save a little time and effort by automating that process.

On the other hand, my Twitter account is “open” to the world – anyone can see my tweets. That’s one reason I try keep it business-like. I pick up new followers that way, presumably people who are interested in the subjects I post about. Many or most of them I don’t know and I follow very few of them back.

My Facebook page is not public; it’s configured so only my friends can see it. My FB friends are people I know – either in “real life” or through mailing lists, discussion groups, email correspondence, etc. It’s a less formal environment, less business-focused. My work is a big part of my life so it shows up there a lot, but I also post things on FB that I would never post on Twitter, such as the details of my recent fall down a flight of stairs, or a mini-review of dinner at a great restaurant.

Then there’s my LinkedIn network, which is a whole different world. It’s all business – I have many contacts there whom I would never think of boring with my dining experiences or medical problems.

Thus my tweets are a subset of my Facebook posts, and my LinkedIn activities are completely separate from either.  It’s a matter of using different services for different, but overlapping purposes. Of course, other people may use the same services differently – some folks make their tweets private and only allow friends to follow them, in which case you might disclose much more intimate information in your tweets.

I’m curious about what readers think. Do you use different social networking sites for different purposes? Does it annoy you when your friends’ twitter posts show up in the FB stream? Or do you consider the whole SN phenomenon a waste of time? Let me know.

 
deb@shinder.net    www.debshinder.com

Our network, like so many “just grew that way.” There was some rhyme and reason to the original setup when we moved here four and a half years ago, but we’ve added servers, switches, WAPs and other network devices as the need arose, and now it’s a bit of a jungle in there. Here’s a look at the current server room:

Even though our new servers and desktops have gigabit NICs, we haven’t been able to take full advantage because most of the switches are still old 10/100 models. They still work fine, so it seems like a shame to just decommission them – but for tasks like doing full backups across the network or streaming recorded TV files and other large media files from one computer to another, we really need the speed.

So today I bit the bullet and ordered three new gigabit switches. This afternoon, I’m going to be clearing out a couple of the older servers (including two that run Windows 2000 and have been going strong since the late 1990s) to make room for the newest Xeon quad core server, who has to move out of the “extra” office because I’m about to remodel it and turn it into my upstairs office.

Someday maybe we’ll actually buy a rack for the rack mount servers. :) In the meantime, the server room is never going to be exactly a showplace, but maybe I can get it cleaned up a little when Tom goes out of town at the end of the month, so that it will at least be fit for humans to enter.

deb@shinder.net    www.debshinder.com

The Cyber Security Act of 2009 was introduced in the U.S. Senate on April 1. Was that just a coincidence or is this (we hope) a big joke? According to eWeek’s article Bill Grants President Unprecedented Cyber Security Powers, it gives the president the authority to shut down private networks and allows the Security of Commerce to demand data from them “without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule or policy restricting such access.” Designated private networks would be required to get government permission before they could install new security software. Now that’s scary.

deb@shinder.net   www.debshinder.com

A recent article by Andrew Garcia on the eWeek web site proclaims that Wi-Fi is a Smartphone Must. That hasn’t been my experience at all. My Samsung Omnia, like the i760 and i730 before it, has wi-fi networking. I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I’ve used that feature.

Andrew wrote, “My device—an Apple iPhone—would be practically useless without Wi-Fi. No matter how many commercials I see touting more bars in more places, AT&T has completely failed to win me over with its network.” Maybe this is just a failing of iPhones and/or of AT&T or maybe it’s a problem with GSM networks. I don’t know, because I don’t use any of them.

With Verizon, I get a good EV-DO signal just about everywhere I go. I can’t remember the last time I was unable to get my email or access a web site with my phone. Now, granted, I don’t go wandering out into outlying areas that much; I spend most of my time in my home on the eastern edge of Dallas County or somewhere else in the DFW metroplex. I occasionally travel to Seattle/Redmond, Las Vegas or San Diego. When I do venture down I-30 into rural Texas, though, I’ve still been able to get use my phone’s data capabilities, albeit it’s not always as fast. But the places where I can’t get EV-DO are not places where there’s likely to be a wi-fi network, either.

Don’t get me wrong – I’m happy to have wi-fi on the Omnia as a backup in case I ever do need it. I’m not saying they should eliminate it in the next model. I’m just saying personally, I almost never use it. So I would hardly rate it as a “must have” feature.

deb@shinder.net    www.debshinder.com