We've had our AT&T cordless phone system that we use for our small business for about five years now, and it has served us well, but some of the handsets and chargers are beginning to go south, so we decided it was time to see what's new out there.

Back when we bought this 2.4 GHz system, it cost around $250 for the base station and $69.99 for each additional handset. It was expandable up to six handsets and we got five. It's a two line system, so we had both the landline and the VoIP plugged into it up until a couple of months ago, when we finally cut the PSTN cord.

So now we use just the VoIP line, with our cell phones as backup. That saves a good bit of money and we no longer had the need for a two line phone. That gave us a lot more flexibility in choosing a replacement system. We looked at a number of them and ended up selecting another AT&T system. It seemed like the smart thing to do, since the previous ones worked well for so long.

The new base station cost only $89 and the handsets were $59. And although I doubt we would ever need so many, this system will let you expand up to twelve handsets. Another nice thing is that replacement batteries for these handsets cost only $17; the ones for the old handsets were $29.

But the really nice thing is that, as with so many electronics devices, you get more features for less money. First, the handset that comes with the base is cordless; the one on the old base station was corded. The base station itself is very compact and fits nicely in a central location, as shown below:

 
AT&T 5632 base station

It solves a problem that we didn't even realize we had - until we found out there was a solution. When the cell phones are down stairs and we're upstairs, and vice versa, it can be a pain getting to them when they ring. This Bluetooth enabled phone systems lets you pair up your Bluetooth cell phones (both of them) with it, which means when the cell phone rings, you can answer it on any of the AT&T cordless handsets. You can also make calls out through the cell phone from the cordless handset.

And the handsets are very cool. They have nice color LCD screens like modern cell phones, instead of the blah text only screen on the old ones:

AT&T 562 handset

You can even choose an animated wallpaper for your handset (look out, iPhone - we've got the cool factor now, too). Just about everything, from saving a phone number in memory to switching to intercom mode, is easier on these handsets because there are shortcuts; you don't have to wade through a bunch of menus to do common tasks. And you can do some things that the old one didn't do at all, like setting a different ring for different people in your address book (again, something that's common with cell phones but less so on cordless phones).

Setting the system up proved to be pretty easy, including pairing it with our cell phones. You can pair it with as many as eight BT devices, cell phones and headsets. We did have a problem when we tried to use it with a BT headset that Tom had just bought, but the problem seemed to be the headset itself, since it paired up with no problem and the person on the other end of the conversation could hear the one wearing the headset, but the person with the headset couldn't hear anything. It's a Motorola headset and I guess it's just not compatible with these phones.

The voice quality on the phones themselves is very clear and I like that it has a real (hardware) volume control instead of just a soft control as some (including the old ones) do. I also like the general feel of the handset, and that it has a belt clip that you can use if you want to walk around with it. Haven't had a chance to test this yet, but the documentation says that fully charged, the handsets will provide five hours of talk time; that's a couple of hours more than the old ones.

So far, we're very pleased with the new system. Oh, and it's 5.8 GHz, while the old one is 2.5 GHz - that means we can operate both of them at the same time if we want, without fear that the signals will interfere with each other. So we can put the older handsets in places like the server room, where we only use them occasionally, and put the newer ones on our desks for every day use.

If you're in the market for a good cordless phone system for your home or small business, this one works well and is very reasonably priced.

Many folks have asked why Microsoft didn't add the capability for multiple virtual desktops in Vista. The Virtual Desktop PowerToy for XP is a popular one, and Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard) allows you to create up to 16 virtual desktops using the Spaces feature. Virtual desktops have been standard on Linux/UNIX operating systems for some time (BeOS's Workspaces supports up to 32 different desktops).

Virtual desktops are nice for organizing your workflow when you do a lot of switching between one project and another. For instance, yesterday I was working on an article for TechRepublic about green IT, and had a web browser I was using to research that topic, as well as some Word docs and PowerPoint presentations about the subject to which I was referring.

At the same time, I was involved in reviewing a document for one of Microsoft's internal tech writers, so I had that doc open, along with some web sites pertaining to the subject.

From time to time, I would take time out from whichever of those projects I was working on to check my email. I might need to open another browser site to check on something in order to answer an email message.

Even with three monitors, all these different windows can start to clutter things up. More than once, when I was multitasking like this, I've closed the wrong browser window and had to go through several steps to get it back again, especially if I didn't realize it until I went back to work on that particular topic.

With virtual desktops, I can put everything pertaining to the TR article on one desktop, everything related to the Microsoft paper on another, and Outlook and my "generic" instance of the web browser on a third. Things stay organized and when I'm working on one project, there's nothing on any of my screens related to anything else (which also helps cut down on distractions such as an email message coming in from a friend).

So how do you get virtual desktops on Vista? There is a third party (open source) program called VirtuaWin that's been around for a while and allows up to nine desktops. It works pretty well but has had a few bugs.

If you don't need that many desktops, you can download a new SysInternals tool from Microsoft TechNet called Desktops v1.0. It's a tiny download (62KB) and is pretty simple, and so far it has worked flawlessly for me. It provides four virtual desktops. I'm a little wary about installing anything that messes with the integral operation of the operating system, but I trust Mark Russinovich (it was written by him and Bryce Cogswell) so I had no compunction about trying this one out.

It puts an icon in your system tray (the first one on the left in the top row below) that you click to switch between desktops:

You can also switch using a key combination: by default it's ALT + the desktop number (1, 2, 2 or 4) but you can change that to a different key combo when you set up the program.

Best of all, it works great with multiple monitors. As you can see, each virtual desktop in the window for switching or creating a new desktop below displays all three of my monitors:

So if you find your desktop getting cluttered but don't want to have to close any of those windows, try putting them on separate desktops.

Sometimes it's easier to understand concepts when they're explained in the context of something familiar. This presentation over on Dana Epps' blog uses the beloved Star Wars characters and concepts to explain how threat modeling works. Not sure of the differences between threat, risk, and vulnerability? Check it out:
http://silverstr.ufies.org/blog/archives/001047.html

I've been laughed at and probably even suspected of being some sort of criminal, because I still engage in a very old fashioned practice: I use real money. When I deposit my checks in the bank, I always hold out some cash. And when I go to the store, I use it to pay for groceries and other purchases. Same thing in restaurants; I pay with legal tender.  I only use a credit card when I buy online or when I make a large purchase that I didn't plan ahead for (which is rare).

"Why in the world would you risk carrying around cash?" I've been asked. Maybe because I don't want to risk having this happen to me:

Spy Cam In Wal-Mart Set To Beam Credit Card Numbers To Thieves

ORLANDO, Fla. -- A mysterious box with an antenna found hidden inside a Wal-Mart was a planted spy camera set up to beam customer credit card numbers to thieves in the parking lot, police said.

Sure, the victims of credit card scams are protected by various laws and usually don't end up paying the bill. And they usually even get their credit reports straightened out and the use of their cards back ... eventually. In fact, the shoppers who wrote checks might find themselves in more trouble than the card users, since the spy cam probably captured their driver's licenses - complete with their addresses and dates of birth (and in some states, your social security number is your DL number; don't know about Florida) - all the great information needed for identity theft.

Either way, I like the idea of not having to hand over any of my personal info just to buy a few frozen dinners. You never know who's looking at it, and how they're planning to use it.

Sure, there are dangers involved in carrying cash, too. That's why I do plan ahead, and only take as much with me as I expect I'm going to spend. And as a former cop and a citizen of the state of Texas, I carry something else: a concealed handgun - and I know how to use it. It's another old-fashioned concept, I guess - the right to defend my property and myself from the bad guys.

If things keep going the way they have been, I imagine one day both cash and firearms will be outlawed completely. But most of us old fashioned folks will probably be gone by then.

Want to really understand how Windows uses physical memory, why your computer reports less memory than the actual amount of RAM you have installed, and how to determine whether adding more memory would boost your performance or just be a waste of money?

You may have heard that "32 bit operating systems are limited to 4 GB of memory" - but wait a minute. The 32 bit version of Windows Server 2003 Datacenter Edition will support 128 GB. Why does that supposed "4 GB limit" only apply to client operating systems? Is it a real technical limitation or just an artificially imposed licensing issue, or is there another reason for it?

What about the 2 TB limit on the 64 bit edition of Windows Server 2008 Datacenter Edition? Is that a hardware limitation or could it actually handle even more?

If these questions fascinate you, you need to read one of the best explanations of the subject that I've run across: Pushing the Limits of Windows: Physical Memory on Mark Russinovich's blog.

It's just the first in a series of "Pushing the Limits" posts that will go into the same sort of detail about Windows' use of CPUs, virtual memory and other resources. I'm looking forward to the next one.

Here's a very interesting post by George Ou about David Maynor's "war driver in a box" - an iPhone set up to infiltrate your company via the mail room and connect to your wireless LAN. The hacker never has to set foot on the premises or even get close:

The iPhone wireless LAN ownage in a box 

Of course, this isn't iPhone specific; there is no reason it couldn't also be done with a Windows mobile or Linux-based smart phone that has built in wi-fi (although you would probably need expensive commercial tools to do it on WM; thus this is a case where the fact that the big commercial vendors like Microsoft don't put the raw drivers into the hands of "civilians" actually makes their product more secure). In any event, Maynor's plan is pretty ingenious, and highlights the need for much better controls on wireless access.

Of course, mobile devices that can connect to the corporate network present many security issues, even when they belong to legitimate network users.

This came up on a discussion list to which I belong: one member posted information about Xobni, the social networking and inbox organization plug-in for Outlook that was recently reviewed by Walt Mossberg of the Wall Street Journal (http://www.xobni.com/).  Another list member commented that "it sounds like it would be more useful to someone who invades your system."

I found that an interesting way to look at it. His premise was that if you had Xobni installed and someone took control of your computer, that person would be better able to find your information. I guess the same could be said of any search tool, but it hardly seems like a reason not to install the program. After all, if someone has control of your computer to the extent that he can run Xobni on it remotely, then he could also install it - or whatever other search/analysis tools he wants to use.

To me, to forego installing something that can benefit you for fear that an intruder might use it is like refusing to have a gun in the house for your protection because you're afraid a burglar will find it and use it against you. Instead you take steps to prevent the burglar from getting in to begin with by having good locks, an alarm system, big dogs, etc. (firewalls, antimalware, access controls, IDS) and you protect the gun itself by keeping it on or near your person (strong passwords, access controls).

Certainly there are reasons to worry about security with any Internet-connected application or service. Xobni installs persistent cookies on your hard drive, something that many consider unacceptable. They also use web beacons (clear .gifs) to track your usage patterns. The service states explicitly that they do not warrant the security of any information that you transmit to them, only that they make "commercially reasonable efforts to ensure the security of [their] systems." Xobni's integration with the LinkedIn social network may also make some folks nervous. These are valid concerns - but in my opinion, the fear that "someone who invades your system" might use the software to get a better organized view of your email communications isn't.