Office 12 to go all-XML, all the time

Once again, Mary Jo Foley scoops everyone with a two-hour head start on Microsoft’s big Office announcement:

Microsoft continues to slowly trickle out bits of information about its Office 12 suite. On Thursday the company will announce that it plans to make XML-based file formats the default in the version of Office due to ship in the latter half of 2006.

Microsoft is introducing the new formats as part of Office 12, officials said, and will share more details about them at next week’s Tech Ed 2005 conference in Orlando, Fla.

The new Word, Excel and PowerPoint formats will be designated as .docx, .xlsx and .pptx , respectively. Microsoft is referring to the family of new formats as “Microsoft Office Open XML Formats.”

Interesting, but not world-shattering. I was holding my breath that the story was going to screw up the schedule for updating my Office book next year, but I can rest easier now.

I’ve turned off ads in RSS

I was horrified to see the wildly inappropriate ad that Overture slipped into my feed (thanks, Thomas, for pointing it out).

For now, I’ve turned off all ads in the feed and won’t turn them back on until I am 100% certain that the problem is resolved – and even then I may leave them off. If you continue to see ads, especially ads that are inappropriate, please let me know.

Spammer, heal thyself!

I just got an e-mail from an organization that calls itself SPAMIS (Strategic Partnership Against Microsoft Illegal Spam). The message consisted of an article that was apparently written by Graham Lea of The Register, complaining that Microsoft is abusing some of its mailing lists and sending out unwelcome, unsolicited e-mail.

Ironically, the mailing from SPAMIS …

  1. was unsolicited;
  2. was addressed to an e-mail alias that I have never used at any Web site and that never receives any e-mail except from my domain registrar;
  3. didn’t include any identifying information about the sender;
  4. didn’t include any mechanism for removal from the list.

In short, this group sent me spam complaining about someone else’s spam.

Even more ironically, the domain from which the mailing was sent has apparently been suspended by its hosting company.

Funny, isn’t it?

One more time: do not clean out your Prefetch folder!

Yet another Web site posted yet another “tip” today recommending that you clean out your Prefetch folder to improve performance of Windows. Arrrggghhh! I’ve written about this repeatedly (here and here and here, for instance), but the message doesn’t seem to be spreading very fast. Maybe this quote from “Misinformation and the Prefetch Flag” by Ryan Myers, a developer on Microsoft’s Windows Client Performance Team, will help:

XP systems have a Prefetch directory underneath the windows root directory, full of .pf files — these are lists of pages to load. The file names are generated from hashing the EXE to load — whenever you load the EXE, we hash, see if there’s a matching (exename)-(hash).pf file in the prefetch directory, and if so we load those pages. (If it doesn’t exist, we track what pages it loads, create that file, and pick a handful of them to save to it.) So, first off, it is a bad idea to periodically clean out that folder as some tech sites suggest. For one thing, XP will just re-create that data anyways; secondly, it trims the files anyways if there’s ever more than 128 of them so that it doesn’t needlessly consume space. So not only is deleting the directory totally unnecessary, but you’re also putting a temporary dent in your PC’s performance. [emphasis in original]

Bottom line: You will not improve Windows performance by cleaning out the Prefetch folder. You will, in fact, degrade Windows performance by cleaning out the Prefetch folder. I’ve done performance testing that establishes this definitively. In all the many sites that offer this bogus tip, I have yet to see a single piece of actual performance testing.

Oh, and for anyone who cites this TechRepublic article as a source, let me just say that it contains more serious factual errors than I can count. For instance:

As you boot your workstation or access programs on your workstation, XP’s prefetcher copies portions of those files to the Prefetch area of your hard drive.

That’s completely wrong. The files in the Prefetch folder contain lists of pages that that should be loaded when a program starts. Each file is essentially an index. Windows XP doesn’t copy portions of any files to the Prefetch folder.

When your workstation boots, XP prefetches portions of the files you use most frequently and has any application you’ve recently run waiting and ready to go.

This is equally absurd. If this were true, it would mean that Windows was actually loading into memory every program you’ve ever used, every time you start Windows. That’s not the way it works at all. When your PC starts up, Windows looks in the Prefetch folder to determine how best to load Windows. It doesn’t do a thing with the .pf files for applications (unless, of course, you’ve configured one of those apps to start up with Windows).

If you’re frequently using the same few applications over and over again, prefetching can greatly increase the apparent speed of a system. Rather than waiting for you to click an icon to start a program, and then loading all of the associated files, libraries, and pointers necessary to run the program, XP has all the components of your programs preloaded. When you click an icon to start the program, most of the hard work is already done.

The author just made this up. The .pf files don’t get used at all until you run a program. What actually happens when you click an icon is that Windows uses the information in the Prefetch folder to decide which program segments to load and in what order to load those pages. There’s plenty of documentation for this, including Ryan Myers’ article and this definitive article by Mark Russinovitch and David Solomon, Windows XP Kernel Improvements Create a More Robust, Powerful, and Scalable OS.

The drawback to prefetching is that XP will prefetch a program even if you use it only once or twice. XP will retain a copy of a portion of it in the Prefetch folder. From there, it will prefetch the program, taking resources from your workstation even though you may have no intention of ever using the program again.

Again, the author just pulled this out of who-knows-where. When you run a program, Windows creates a .pf file for it in the Prefetch folder. When you run the program again, Windows looks for this .pf file and uses it to determine how to load the program. The hash doesn’t contain any portion of the original program code. If you never run the program again, that .pf file never gets used, and in fact it gets deleted eventually.

I used to write for TechRepublic. I’ve tried to contact someone there to get them to correct this silly article but have yet to receive a response. It would be really, really great if some of the other sites that have propagated this urban legend would also correct it.

Block tracking cookies the easy way

Prof. Froomkin (welcome back!) links to a tracking cookie opt-out page:

With a few clicks you can block cookies from Doubleclick and six other Internet tracking/marketers. Ironically, you must allow the site to set a “no thanks” cookie, so cookie blockers must be turned off to make this work.

Although this site was a good idea once upon a time, this rigmarole is completely unnecessary. Tracking cookies are, by definition, third-party cookies. I can think of no good reason to allow third-party cookies on my computer, and so I block all of them. You’ll find the detailed instructions in this article I published in January of this year: How to completely eliminate tracking cookies.

The article includes instructions for Internet Explorer and Firefox. I just checked my system, and despite the fact that I have not deleted any cookies in the past year I have no tracking cookies from DoubleClick, Atlas DMT, 24/7 Real Media or any of the other sites listed on this page.

Tip of the day: Move your music, pictures, or video folders

In yesterday’s tip, I explained how to move the My Documents folder. To move the default folders that Windows XP uses for music, pictures, or video, you use a slightly different technique: Select the folder you want to move (My Music, My Pictures, My Video), hold down the right mouse button, and drag it to its new location. When you release the mouse button, choose Move Here. Windows XP automatically updates all references to the folder, including those in the Start menu.

This tip is especially useful if you have a large music or video collection. By moving the My Music or My Videos folder (or both) out of My Documents, you greatly reduce the size of your documents folder and make the task of backing it up faster and easier. A separate drive is the ideal location for bulky music and video files.

Buy these books, and then burn them…

Human Events Online, which bills itself as “The National Conservative Weekly,” has just published a list of the Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries. I really hate to give them the traffic, but you really have to see this list to believe it. It was compiled by “a panel of 15 conservative scholars and public policy leaders,” which explains a lot. Marx, Lenin, Hitler, and Chairman Mao are on the list, of course, along with those evildoers Alfred Kinsey, Betty Friedan, and John Maynard Keynes.

What I find truly ironic is that each of these so-called harmful books contains a color picture of the book’s cover with a link to Amazon.com, with the Human Events affiliate code at the end. The road from hypocrite to whore is paved with affiliate links, apparently.

The authors were kind enough to include 20 additional books that earned two or more votes from this distinguished panel. Charles Darwin’s The Origin of Species (with its title incorrectly transcribed) and On Liberty by John Stuart Mill are on the longer list. And no, My Pet Goat didn’t make the list at all.

Update: Digby has my favorite take on this bullshit list:

Speaking of books, are any of you libertarians out there a little bit discomfited by the fact that “On Liberty” by JS Mill got an honorable mention in the 10 worst books list by HumanEvents magazine? I mean, “Mein Kampf” and “Das Kapital” aren’t big surprises. I’m not shocked by “The Feminine Mystique” or even the inclusion of John Maynard Keynes (although you have to love this commentary: “FDR adopted the idea as U.S. policy, and the U.S. government now has a $2.6-trillion annual budget and an $8-trillion dollar debt.” Haha.)

But “On Liberty”? What, he wasn’t sufficiently agitated about stem cell research? The capital gains tax?

Jesus, I now have not one single intellectual connection to the right. Not one. They are aliens from another planet.”


Oh. and mm notes in the comments that I’m just pissed off because Windows XP Inside Out wasn’t on the list. True. We try our best to do The Communist Manifesto with screenshots, and this is our reward. Sheesh!


Update 2: Cheers and Jeers at Daily Kos has a nice alternate take, which includes Goodnight Moon, Webster’s Dictionary, Roget’s Thesaurus, and Yertle the Turtle should have made the list instead.

Techno-tabloid journalism

Greg Saunders at This Modern World passes along a jaw-dropping quote from former New York Times public editor Daniel Okrent, which, in Greg’s words, “pretty much says all you need to know about modern newsrooms”:

I also believe that columnists are entitled by their mandate to engage in the unfair use of statistics, the misleading representation of opposing positions, and the conscious withholding of contrary data.

By coincidence, this quote arrived at the same time as a typically insightful post from Lawrence Lessig, who starts by talking about conflicts of interest that potentially influence bloggers who accept advertising and then moves on to a much bigger issue:

[T]he more I’ve talked about this with observers and friends, the more I think the real fear is not bloggers tempted by ad revenues. It is instead the emergence of the equivalent of tabloids in blog-space: commercial entities whose sole purpose is to generate ad revenue, who do that by being as ridiculous and extreme as possible.

The danger here is that the conflict has returned. Just as the British tabloids care little about the truth in their path to selling papers, commercial blog-loids care little about the truth in trying to attract eyeballs. And it is here that the cycle turn vicious: for the amateur space feeds the professional troll by careful and repeated efforts to show that claims made are false or outrageous. If you’re paid by the click, who cares why people click.

This creates a dilemma for open and honest disagreement about the facts. For here there is a conflict in interest: the interest of the amateur journalist is not the interest of the professional troll. Yet the only way the amateur can do his job — by quoting and criticizing — is to feed the troll.

Exactly. There’s a profound parallelism between these two posts. Good riddance to Okrent, who nominally worked for the newspaper of record as an advocate for the public and thinks nothing is wrong when column inches in his paper are used to shape public opinion by lying, deceiving, and withholding the truth. That’s the domain of Pravda, not the New York Times.

And I see plenty of journalists, reporters, and analysts in the technical press who think nothing of printing an outrageous story without bothering to check its details, because their job is to get lots of click-throughs and page views and generate maximum ad revenue. In fact, the more outrageous and ridiculous the statement, the more traffic they get. Doesn’t matter whether they’re right or wrong, it’s all about the click-throughs.

If you’ve followed by work for any length of time, you’ll know this is a common theme for me. I sometimes feel like I’m banging my head against a brick wall trying to correct the mountain of misinformation out there on some topics. There are a handful of sites I won’t link to at all, because to do so is to reward bad behavior. Sadly, I’m in the minority on this score. Sensationalism sells, and a short, punchy, well-packaged lie spreads faster than a more complex but truthful story. Corrections rarely get even a tiny fraction of the publicity that a mistaken original gets.

I don’t have a snappy, optimistic ending for this. All I can say is that a healthy sense of skepticism is more valuable now than ever before.

Tip of the day: Move the My Documents folder

The My Documents folder is the default location for your data files. If disk space is at a premium, you might choose to relocate this folder. For instance, if you add a second hard drive to your system, you might decide to use it exclusively for document storage. Here’s how to relocate all your data files to the new drive.

In Windows XP, click the Start button and then right-click the shortcut for My Documents. Click Properties. On the Target tab, click Move and choose the new location for the folder. (If necessary, you can create a new folder using the Browse dialog box.)

Move_my_docs

When you click OK, your document files are moved to the new location. Clicking the My Documents icon on the Start menu or in a common dialog box now takes you to this folder instead of the original location.

One caution: Be aware that some programs (notably Microsoft Outlook and Outlook Express) continue to store data in the hidden Application Data folders within your user profile. When you move your My Documents folder, these files remain in their original location. Make sure your backup strategy includes all your data files, not just those in the My Documents folder.