You cannot even begin to consider yourself a Windows Power User unless you have downloaded and installed the Tweakomatic Scripting Tool.

Tweakomatic is a nifty new utility that writes scripts that enable you to retrieve and/or configure Windows and Internet Explorer settings. So what, you might say. Well, think about it. Because these are Windows Management Instrumentation (WMI) scripts, they can be used to configure settings on remote computers. Need to change something on a remote computer? Then haul out Tweakomatic. And think about this: because Tweakomatic writes scripts, you could do something like run these scripts as logon or logoff scripts. In other words, you could quickly, easily, and automatically configure settings on any or all the computers in your organization. Tweakomatic is undoubtedly the single best thing Microsoft has released since Windows itself!

Well, okay. But it is better than Microsoft Bob.

If you aren’t comfortable with scripts, then you should tinker with TweakUI instead.

PC Magazine‘s latest issue (I subscribe to the digital version) includes a collection of 68 Windows tips. The collection is actually pretty good. I didn’t see any that were too easy or incorrect.

However, I have to say that PC Magazine has the most user-hostile Web site I have ever seen. Ever. Each of the 68 tips is on its own page, surrounded by – no, make that overwhelmed by – literally dozens of ads. It is inconceivable to me that any sane human would actually wade through this dreck. I was ready to give up after the first four tips. This sort of layout is a profound disservice to Neil J. Rubenking and the other experts who worked on this stuff. They deserve better. (And Michael Miller, if you’re reading this, I’m not the only one who thinks your Web site represents the most egregious abuse of advertising ever seen.)

Eventually, I found the printer-friendly pages for this article, where all but a single banner ad are stripped away and the tips in each category are grouped on a single page for convenient reading. As a public service, I present those links here. (Note that two of these categories consist of a single tip each, and the designer, either deliberately or through a screw-up, didn’t create a printer-friendly page.)

Customization, File Management, and Navigation

Performance and Troubleshooting

Security

Networked, Multiuser, and Telecommuter PCs

Editing the Registry (with ads)

Mobile Computing

Internet Explorer

Outlook Express

Windows Keyboard Shortcuts (with ads)

The Seattle P-I’s Microsoft Notebook looks at Microsoft’s $53 billion in cash reserves and does some amusing math:

“The sum of $53 billion is enough to fund NASA for a year, assemble a fleet of 100 Boeing 747s, and buy every person in Seattle a 2004 Subaru Outback — with a few billion left over for incidentals.”

Visit the P-I’s superb Microsoft Blog for a breakdown of the math.

Exhibit A: Fred Langa reports that “…AOL is parsing the content of its members’ emails and blocking them even if they merely *mention* a site that AOL disapproves of.”

Exhibit B:

TechDirt passes along the story of a couple in New Hampshire who claim that AOL’s AutoFix program switched their dial-up phone connection to a toll number and helped them run up a $3,400+ bill. The state’s Attorney General is on their side.

I’d switch to tin cans and string before I allowed AOL on any computer in my home or office.

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.