WinInsider provides this somewhat confused item: Windows XP SP2 Release Candidate patched:

“Microsoft has taken the unusual step of patching release candidate testing software by issuing three critical patches for Windows XP Service Pack 2 RC1. Pre-release software is buggy by definition and users normally expect to have problems fixed either in future test versions or in the final code.

“Testers visiting Windows Update found the updates last week, according to the BetaNews site. Two of the problems involved the Windows Firewall, a renamed and greatly updated version of Windows XP’s former Internet Connection Firewall that will debut with the service pack. The other problem involved dropped virtual private networking connections with Linksys gateway devices.”

They miss several points. First, this is a release candidate. By definition, that means that the development team felt the code was of sufficient quality to consider releasing it to the public. Second, it was released to the public, which apparently has downloaded it in large numbers. Third, these are not “bug fixes” in the traditional sense; these are patches that fix defects in critical security components: the Windows Firewall and VPN connections. Yes, beta software has bugs in it by definition, but it would be irresponsible in the extreme to encourage the public to download and install this code and then not fix security holes when they’re identified.

Finally, the automatic update capability is a key feature of SP2. As such, they deserve beta testing, and what better way to do that than by going “live” with critical updates to people running the release candidate? How else would we all know that this feature actually works?

BBC News passes along the results of a study by Earthlink claiming that the average computer is “infested” with 28 spyware programs.

I have no idea of whether that number truly represents the average PC. In my experience, the number of spyware programs on a particular PC is either very low or very high. Security-conscious people have very little, whereas those who are unaware or ignorant of security threats tend to be targeted.

Two factors in particular seem to control how much spyware lands on a PC, as I see it: One is Kazaa, which opens the floodgates to a tidal wave of crapware and is, in my opinion, the single biggest threat to the PC ecosystem. The other is whether the owner of a particular PC pays attention to the need for security patches and updates. Without regular updates, it’s too easy for hostile software to sneak onto a computer.

On a related note, Dwight Silverman of the Houston Chronicle has published an excellent article that lays out his sensible five-step program for avoiding, detecting, and removing spyware. Bookmark it.

OK, this has nothing to do with Windows or Office. Or maybe it does…

I read a lot of random commentary about Microsoft and its competitors, from both sides of the aisle. Given the emotionally charged nature of the arguments, it’s not surprising that much of the debate is, shall we say, less than rigorous.

In the spirit of elevating the discourse, I therefore present Stephen’s Guide to the Logical Fallacies. Before you launch your next argumentum ad hominem, take a look. (And if you don’t know what ad hominem means, you really need to read this!)

“Logical fallacies are errors of reasoning, errors which may be recognized and corrected by prudent thinkers. This site indexes and describes all known logical fallacies.”

Yahoo! News reports the results of a study by research firm Dynamic Logic that says Internet users are willing to put up with pop-up ads:

“While many online properties have moved to ban pop-ups altogether due to a perceived public backlash, a new Dynamic Logic study shows that two-thirds of consumers are willing to tolerate two intrusive ads per hour in exchange for free content.”

To which I say: Bullshit. After years of barraging us with incessant pop-up ads, the advertising industry now says they’re willing to cut back to two per session. So instead of hammering me over the head multiple times per session, they’ll only whack me with a ball-peen hammer twice for each Web site I visit. And for this I’m supposed to feel grateful?

Worse, there’s the latest wrinkle in pop-up technology, which is the “interstitial” ad that appears as part of the page. It covers the content you’re trying to read, and can only be dismissed if you can find the Close button, which is usually cleverly hidden in a way that would make Martin Hanford proud.

Here’s the deal: I use pop-up blocking software. (Currently, I’m using the built-in blocking features in MyIE2 as well as those in the Google Toolbar.) When I find a site that uses pop-ups, I get annoyed. When I find an advertiser that insists on using interstitial ads, my brain creates a negative association with that advertiser. Do it enough times, and I stop visiting that site.

Dear advertisers, you do not have a right to annoy me, not even just a little bit. The idea that obnoxious advertising is effective is wrong. It insults your customers. If you have a product or service to sell me, give us an honest description of what you’re selling and let us decide whether I need it. If you can only sell your product by resorting to gimmicks, maybe you should take another look at the product.

I just got an e-mail from an Earthlink subscriber via a Web-based form. After I responded to it, I got this note back:

“This is an automatic reply to your email message to [name_deleted]>@earthlink.net

“This email address is protected by EarthLink spamBlocker. Your email message has been redirected to a ‘suspect email’ folder for [name_deleted]@earthlink.net. In order for your message to be moved to this recipient’s Inbox, he or she must add your email address to a list of allowed senders.

“Click the link below to request that [name_deleted]@earthlink.net add you to this list.”

Guess what? It’s a hell of a lot easier to just click Delete. Which is what I did. I’m also setting my spam filters to automatically delete any future messages that contain this nonsense.

This isn’t the dumbest anti-spam program I’ve ever seen, but it’s close. If you’ve got a problem with spam, fix it yourself. Don’t push it back on me.

Microsoft has made the release candidate of Windows XP Service Pack 2 available for download by anyone.

As beta software, it’s of very high quality. I’m confident enough, in fact, to run it on the computer I use every day. If you’ve got a broadband connection, why not try it out? According to Robert Scoble, Microsoft Geek Blogger, they “really appreciate your bug reports and other feedback.”

I haven’t talked about it yet, but I’ve been working extensively with Windows XP Service Pack 2, which just reached the Release Candidate 1 milestone. It’s a very big deal, with major improvements in several key areas, including security and wireless networking.

Paul Thurrott has posted a Screenshot Gallery on his SuperSite for Windows. It’s worth a look if you’re curious about what’s coming.

I’ll have much more to say later.

From the aptly named Techdirt comes this story: Your Computer Is 400 Times Dirtier Than Your Toilet Seat.

“…your telephone, computer keyboard and mouse probably have 400 times the germs as your toilet seat. The thing is, people wash toilet seats… but they tend not to do much to clean or disinfect the things they keep their hands touching all day, every day.”

Eeeeewwww.

Windows Update doesn’t search for Office patches automatically, so if you use Office XP you need to go get it yourself: Office XP Service Pack 3.

Can’t wait to hear how many things Woody finds wrong with it.

The Windows XP Task Manager shows a list of all running programs. You can pop up this list by pressing Ctrl+Alt+Delete or Ctrl+Shift+Esc. The Applications tab shows every running program and corresponds to the items shown on your taskbar.

Much more useful is the list on the Processes tab, which shows every program and service running, even those that are hidden. This is a great way to see which programs are sucking up too much CPU time or memory. It’s also an excellent technique for determining whether you have a spyware/adware or Trojan horse program lurking on your computer.

Deciphering the entries on the Processes list can be tricky, because all you have is a list of program names to go by, and those names aren’t always descriptive. To decipher these listings, bookmark the immensely helpful Start-up Applications page put together by Paul “Pacman” Collins for Pacman’s Portal. After reading the brief introduction, you can go straight to the list itself.