Robert Scoble piggybacks on Joel Spolsky’s list of 12 rules on how to run a beta test. According to Robert, there should be a 13th rule: “Reward top testers.”
I couldn’t agree more. So Robert, how about passing the word to the Office team that sending a cheap trinket to the Office 2003 beta testers (a little AM/FM headphone radio with a value of a buck or two) was not a good way to win friends and influence testers.
My latest Expert Zone article is available. Windows XP Support Secrets includes links to a couple of my favorite third-party support sites as well as some tips for smarter Google searches.
Jim Eshelman’s Windows Support Center is an absolutely top-notch source of reliable information about every aspect of every version of Windows. I particularly like his Favorite Freeware list, which contains up-to-date links to free and useful programs. Highly recommended.
After PC Magazine gave its Editors’ Choice award to Webroot Software’s Spy Sweeper 2.2, I thought I might give this alternative a try.
I can sum up my experience in one word: Ugh.
Installation went smoothly enough. I had no trouble installing the program, which has a clean, easy-to-follow interface. Unlike PC Mag, though, I tested this software not on a test PC infested with viruses and other pests, but on my own system, on which I carefully control the software installed. I can say with confidence that my PC is spyware-free.
So imagine my shock when Spy Sweeper’s half-hour examination turned up 51 “traces” of spyware and adware. Ha! The majority of these offending bits of digital debris were simply cookies, many of them from innocuous sites like Travelocity, com.com (an alias for CNET and ironically, a close cousin of PC Magazine), and Pricegrabber.
More disturbing was the fact that Spy Sweeper identified a couple of perfectly legitimate programs as spyware. According to the sweep results, I was infested with a known adware program called BrowserAid. The file identified was actually a key part of TechSmith‘s excellent screen-capture utility, SnagIt. Spy Sweeper also told me my system had been taken over by something called Eacceleration. That also turned out to be wrong; the DLL that it found was actually the virus-scanning module from my CD/DVD burning program of choice, Nero 6 Ultra Edition.
Spy Sweeper also complained about SideStep, a wonderful Internet Explorer add-in that clearly identifies itself and has an admirable privacy policy. It is ludicrous to call SideStep adware or spyware.
If I had followed Spy Sweeper’s advice, I would have disabled at least three programs I rely on heavily. An unsophisticated user would have never figured out that Spy Sweeper was wrong and would probably have wiped out these innocent programs.
Ad-Aware 6 and Spybot S&D had no trouble keeping their mitts off my perfectly legitimate software. And both are free, in contrast to the $30 Spy Sweeper.
Security software that can’t tell the good guys from the bad guys isn’t worth paying for. It’s not even worth downloading for free. My advice: Stay away from Spy Sweeper.
In its current issue, PC Magazine has an interesting review of 11 anti-spyware programs. Spy Stoppers is available online.
It’s a pretty good overview, marred by one huge omission: The article doesn’t include a definition of spyware. In fact, I’ve found that this sloppy use of the terms spyware and adware is causing mass confusion among people. It’s not fair that reasonably benign programs like Gator (annoying, but easy to remove) should get lumped in with CoolWebSearch (hostile, evil, and nearly impossible to remove).
Right now, the purveyors of the truly awful CoolWebSearch program and its many variants are engaged in a battle to take over as many innocent machines as possible. Someone has shut down the incredibly useful Spyware Info Web site, which offers the free CWShredder utility to remove this parasite. I’m not particularly worried about cookies from DoubleClick, but I am concerned that a program can install itself and then aggressively hide its actions and make itself impossible to remove.
That’s not spyware. That’s a hostile takeover.
Yahoo Search is getting a lot of good press lately for its new search engine design. A lot of the ink is coming from people who think Google needs some competition. Fair enough.
But Yahoo has a long, long way to go before it earns my trust. Case in point: Type spybot into Yahoo’s search box and this is what you get:
I’ve blacked out the names and URLs of the companies that purchased the ads that appear at the top of this list, because they don’t deserve any publicity. They’re deliberately capitalizing on the good name of Spybot S&D to lure unsophisticated or distracted Web searchers into clicking their links. Instead of getting the real thing for free, you wind up at a Web site offering an inferior product for a frightful amount of money. In both of these examples, the sales pitch is misleading and filled with unnecessary scare tactics.
It’s bad enough that these copycat companies are trying to steal the good name of the Spybot folks. In my opinion, Yahoo is playing right into their hands by not clearly differentiating the search results. Those “sponsored listings” at the top look just like the real search results that appear below. And I have already heard from two people who were duped.
Google, unfortunately, is only a little better. The same search produces two “sponsored links” above the real search listings. They don’t look exactly like the search results, but they also don’t look like ads. And that’s the point. How difficult could it be to put the words PAID ADVERTISEMENT beneath each listing? That way, we’d know exactly what it is. Both companies deserve scorn for deliberately deceiving their customers.
If you’re responsible for a computer that you think has been infected by any variant of the Mydoom virus/worm, download this new Mydoom Worm Removal Tool (KB836528) from Microsoft.
Scot Finnie is on a very short list of people I trust and read regularly. His latest newsletter calls out problems with the 832894 IE patch I recommended last week. Scot says there are problems with the patch, problems that are so severe he recommends not installing it.
I disagree. I suspect by this point Scot may too. Microsoft has acknowledged the bug that caused Scot’s problems and has released a fix with the daunting technical title 832414 – XMLHTTP call fails for URLs with embedded user credentials.
I don’t have a Web-based application running here that uses the MSXML parser, so I can’t guarantee that this patch works. But it seems to directly address the problems Scot referred to.
For most people, the IE patch is a genuine critical update and should be installed immediately. If you’re having troubles with authenticating on a Web-based application (like the content management system Scot uses), don’t compromise your PC’s security by removing this update. Instead, try installing the XML service pack. (If you’re not sure which one to use, pick Service Pack 4.) If it doesn’t work, I want to know about it.
Oh, and if you’re a Windows enthusiast, subscribe to Scot’s free newsletter. He knows his stuff.
Microsoft’s latest Cumulative Security Update for Internet Explorer is an absolute must. It plugs a couple of nasty security holes, and it eliminates a flaw that identity thieves have exploited to fool unsuspecting victims into giving up details about their PayPal and Ebay accounts.
By itself, that’s really good news. But here’s a bonus that I haven’t heard anyone mention yet: This patch fixes the infamous scrolling bug that I wrote about last year. An exasperating bug in the November 11, 2003 Cumulative Security Update caused IE to jump two pages with every click in the scroll bar at the right of the window. After installing the new update, you’ll find that IE’s scroll bars work the way they should again.
Visit Windows Update and install this patch today.
My latest column for Microsoft’s Expert Zone is now available. In it, I share some of my secrets for Moving Files and Settings to a New PC. (It’s not always as easy as it looks!)
