The majority of this post is a copy of an Email I sent to a family friend when I was asked to "digitally restore" some faded and damaged photographs depicting family history which they had scanned for preservation.

The images where quite damaged before the scan, but the Email I received containing 3 Jpegs of these images had far more corruption from the image data compression than anything else, and where stored at a resolution which could be comfortably viewed on screen without reduction.

Admittedly, any higher resolution would only allow you to zoom in on the grainy scratched surface of the image. But it would have lessened the compression errors, and given me a chance to see clean areas between the scratches and grain.

I hope this information will be useful to anyone trying to make digital copies of ageing images (photos, snaps, art work etc) for their preservation.

The illustration above is of two identical images at a resolution of 64 pixels by 64 pixels, depicting a pattern deliberately designed to show up the errors in Jpeg compression.

The left half was saved as a 0.4 kilobyte truecolour PNG image. 32bit, just so there is no argument that the PNG is storing a palletised 6 colour image, where Jpeg will only store grayscale or truecolour. The right half was stored as a 2 kilobyte Jpeg. 4 times the storage space. Each where then blown up to 256 x 256 pixels and aligned alongside each other so you don't have to strain you eyes to see them and the damage caused by Jpeg compression.

Cleaning images is about looking for patterns that are clear from the original, and removing what is out of place. This is made almost impossible by the mess that Jpeg compression makes of regular patterns in images.

In fact, if the image is clean and natural, (where the above example is clearly not) Jpeg does a pretty good job of only removing the patterns our eyes don't notice... the trouble is, when this image is damaged (either by age, or equipment inaccuracy) those areas our brain ignores as regular patterning, are exactly what you need to recreate an estimation of the damaged area.

The Jpeg compression technique (Macro-block Wavelet compression and Discreet Cosign Transformations) is used in DV camcorders (Motion Jpeg), DVD videos (Mpeg) and DVB (h264 / mpeg4)but at least in those forms you have multiple frames with which to smooth out the errors caused by this lossy (messy) compression. Analogue Film, Video and Broadcast also introduce artifacts from analogue compression, but these are of an entirely different nature.

PNG, TGA and TIFF all compress (some optionally) reasonably well, most of the time, without needing to modify the image in order to make it compress better, and frequently compress an image that has previously been compressed as a Jpeg worse (bigger file) than the raw image before Jpeg compression.

If you consider the images above, the one on the left contains many identical repeating patterns of pixel formations, which can be grouped together and replaced with a single <insert here> marker to reduce storage space. The image on the right has destroyed the identical nature of those blocks of pixels, thus destroying it's loss less compressibility. I also mentioned that there where no more than 6 different colours in any of the pixels in the original image, but Jpeg compression has clearly blended, merged and deformed those colours producing many many more shades and hues.

There are very few really good reasons to use Jpeg. Here are a few :-

1. My mobile phone only stores images as Jpeg. (common, sad to say)
2. My web host only accept Jpeg images. (not common, but all sorts of weirdness happens with free hosts)
3. My web browser (or my target audiences) is really really old and can only handle Jpegs, Gifs and the antiquated AOL ART files. (And then, only for full colour images)
4. I really can't afford all the memory cards I would need to store the 500 shots I want to take of this once in a lifetime event in raw format. (And you are willing to sacrifice quality for quantity)
5. My Digital camera is so obscure, I can't find a program that can read it's raw files. (O'Rly? £20 in Tesco will get you a 1.5 MPixel camera which is pretty standard)

Additionally there are a number of times when you should never use any form of image compression which sacrifices image quality for storage space:-

1. For medical photography. (Is that a tumer or a Jpeg artifact?)
2. For scientific photography. (Is there a star in that consolation? IDK could be just compression noise.)
3. For historical archiving. (Have you restored and preserved ageing film? Or have you destroyed the detail it once had with compression noise? Hang on... did Hitler shave for this picture, or has Jpeg just eaten his moustache?)

We are making great strides in restoring film and video footage. With motion mapping you can average out noise and enhance detail, you can even restore lost focus, (sometimes) or interpolate the motion, or resolution between frames.

Consumer demand for High Definition (HD-DVD or Blue-Ray) reproductions of "Frank Cappra's - It's a Wonderful Life" and NASAs increasing frustration with cut-backs forcing astronomical observations back to earth bound measurements are driving us to produce ever more accurate photography by increasing our data set to weed out anomalies.

An very nice technique for non-videographers / cinematographers is called HDR (High Dynamic Range). The process involves taking two pictures in succession, either at different exposures or with and without artificially lighting the subject / scene. (With and without flash, for example) Where you would previously have had to accept an exposure in the middle, which lost some very bright detail and some very dark detail, you can now combine the two images to produce a very natural looking composite which contains great detail both in the very bright and very dark areas.

But sometimes, a single image is all you have. You can't fire an x-ray machine at a man 100 times and average out the differences just to find out what's wrong with him, because the radiation would kill him anyway. You can't go back in time and ask Jesus if he'd mind wiping his brow on a few more shrouds just so we can get a better look at his features either.

If you only have one image to work with, get as much detail out of it as you can. If it's fuzzy or grainy, that doesn't matter. The fuzz and grain is probably in some way related to detail you might just still be able to make some sense out of. If not now, than just wait a while. New ideas are popping up all the time.

Of course C.S.I.s getting a perfect mug shot of a felon off of a hub cap in the distance on a re-used VHS recording from a security camera is complete science fiction. There are too many analogue compression artifacts in that too, and sadly the poor alignment of scan lines in VHS media makes many motion compensation tricks pretty worthless... for now.
Interestingly, if they used Betamax tape, or film the result would be much more plausible, even than a modern DV tape.  O_O

When trying to digitally preserve your aging snaps and photographs, please please please:-

1. Scan big. (Laser printers start at 1200dpi at the bottom end of the range, don't go below that if you can help it)
2. Scan more than once. (You can combine multiple scans to remove artifacts introduced by the scanner mechanism)
3. Scan at more than one brightness and / or contrast setting. (You can increase the range of luminescence in the image that way, so that increasing contrast after the fact does not produce banding)
4. Never, ever, ever compress using lossy methods (Jpeg, Mpeg, Motion Jpeg, JP2000, Gif etc) until you are sure you have finished working on an image, and want to distribute it to people who may not have anything other than a digital photo frame or mobile phone on which to view it.
5. Try to keep a backup of the uncompressed image somewhere. The Jpeg reign of terror has to end sometime soon, and it will be nice to have a clean copy to convert to whatever we standardise on after that. ;)

Today, I received this communication from Microsoft TechNet... where I normally only get the Newsletters, which are also becoming very boring and very Ad / Spam ish.

lol. Now I must protest. I use (and have used, since 1998) a Logitec TrackMan Marble FX. This "mouse" predates optical and laser technology, and "works on any surface" including glass, and allows me (most importantly) to move the pointer without moving my hand at all.

In fact, it's greatest let down (aside from the fact that it also pre-dates the "scroll wheel" and requires custom drivers for the 3rd and 4th buttons which do not support modern operating systems, since more than 2 buttons was also very rare when it was made) is that it was only ever available with a PS2 connecter, and as such is very difficult to attach to a Mac... and some of the more recent laptops.

What's worse, is that the first test in this "game" is to install Microsoft Silverlight... Err, no! There are many people who, for various reasons, cannot install Silverlight. The Internet is for everyone, I will not promote a web based technology which enforces that pages using it are only accessible by people using one companies products.

You cannot load a Silverlight page on your Mac, iPhone, Android Phone, PS3 or (without a hell of a lot of faffing around and good luck) Linux / BSD machine. You might as well make an entire web site out of HyperGuide stacks. At least enough was known about these technologies that third parties could read HyperGuide stacks on something other than a Mac.

The same problem presented with RealPlayer, and is happening again with Flash in the hands of Adobe. Under Macromedia, the source code to the latest Flash player plug-in was always available to the public. That source hasn't been updated since Adobe took over. So now, SVG animations play more universally than anything that requires a version of Flash plug-in above version 8. Especially as Adobe will not (cannot?) release a version of the plug-in that works on 64-bit systems other than Apple Mac. (No 64-bit Linux or Windows versions exist)

If 64-bit Windows users are forced to use Silverlight for rapid multi-media and Mac users to stick with Flash, with X-Windows based POSIX users (including non-Windows mobile devices) running only SVG, the World Wide Web is fractured. It is no standard at all.

And back to the "mouse" issue, IMHO, we do not need more reliable "mouse" technologies, what we need is less reliance on a "mouse" like device to operate the pointer.

I have used tablet PCs, and find the touch-screen stylus method of mouse control very convenient... but playing WoW on a desktop setup with my arm out stretched pressing a stylus into the screen to guide my character would not be very beneficial... and in tense raid times I think I'm likely to skewer the LCD trying to kill an instance end game boss.

I quite like the touch screen methods of using an iPhone or PDA. Especially Apples 2 finger approach. Though anyone from my home land who things giving Apple 2 fingers is funny and cover their smirk in my presence. ;)

Graphics tablets have never really taken off, and shining lasers into peoples eyes to track the location on the screen they are focusing on is not great for the health of ones retina.

Touch Pads seem to be a love hate thing. I've used good ones, and bad ones... and I still feel that, for the portability of the laptop (that is, when using it without a desk to hand) the touch pad still exceeds the practicality of any mouse. But my beloved Trackball still wins out.

I've seen pointers which are similar to laser pens for presentations, where the on screen pointer moves to where ever you point the puck in your arm, and this can be used whilst wandering the auditorium or lecture hall. Unfortunately you can't easily do the same for a keyboard, and it's hard to operate a keyboard with a puck in one hand anyway.

You see, the thing about a touch pad, graphics tablet, touch screen or trackball, is that you can use them, even on a duvet cover, or waterbed. You don't need any surface, solid or otherwise to perform your pointing operations. The tablet, touch pad and touch screen provide their own surfaces, and the trackball can be held in the hand and rolled with fingers alone. It's a little like playing "round and round the garden" upside down.

For the time being, I'm happy to stick with my trackball. But I think the days of the "mouse" should surely be numbered... and I wish people would stop trying to re-invent the wheel. I have seen no mouse which is better than the roller ball versions which came with Classic Macs, Amigas and as expansions to the old 8-bit computers. My AMX Mouse on my ZX Spectrum was just as effective as any modern laser tracking mouse, and just as flawed. The tracking technology is not the problem... it is the design for an analogue input device.

I have seen drivers which allow one to use an analogue joystick to control the mouse pointer, and this was pretty instinctive, and did not require any surface to mount the joystick on. (a lap is usually sufficient)

I remember that the Mouse on my Atari ST was quite flakey, and so I often resorted to using the Alt and Cursor keys to move the pointer... just as I often resort to "mouse-keys" Accessibility feature in Windows. It's not accurate enough for art and design work, but it's often easier than taking your hand off the keyboard just to click send in some idiot written instant messenger which doesn't assign a key on the keyboard to the send button... like "Return" would be nice. I'm sure many keyboard lovers have come across programs which use a point an click control which cannot be activated with the keyboard, when the main program is all about typing something.

At any rate. I think that any technology which claims to revolutionise the state-of-the-art mouse, at this point in time, is rather like a state-of-the-art hammer. As in, it's just a hammer. There are better ways of banging things into other things, and though many can do things a hammer alone cannot, few are a versatile as a hammer... even so, it's still just a hammer, and, for short term use, a lead or stone hammer is just as effective as a carbon-fiber super-hammer.

For long term use, my uber trackball is still going strong. It's accurate, it's precise, it's fast, it's got more buttons than modern generic drivers can cope with, and it's so outdated and unsupported, was it really necessary for it to be so good in the first place? Either way... When it finally breaks, or PS/2 ports stop being fitted in computers, I will have to cry long and hard. There will probably be great expense involved in it's funeral.

Come back Apple Mighty-Mouse, all is forgiven?...

DUDE!!! IT'S JUST A FREEKING MOUSE!!!

Okay, so I'm going to recommend (somewhat unlike me) a commercial program. That is one which is neither free (as in free beer) nor free (as in free speech). Well, actually version 6.7 of ALZip is the last free beer release of this nifty little program, and I recommend you download it and give it a try right now.

I don't think I'd ever be prepared to "pay" for a Zip program, and if I where to be convinced, it would have to be something like Iceows (formerly ArjFolder) but with a true integration with the desktop explorer (Windows Shell Namespace Extension) ala Zip Folders  (ZipFldr.dll) or Cabinets (CabView.dll). Iceows is the closest I have seen to this (surely the most transparent) approach to archive handling in Windows. The only difference between Iceows archive folders and Zip Folders or Cabinet views is that the tool band object in the browse window is only a close facsimile of the windows explorer toolbar, not the real one.

If you are any good with Namespace Extensions and fancy having a go at this, I encourage you to try. ZipFldr.dll and CabView.dll can be transported from one version of windows to another, and they acquire the visual look and feel of the host system, not to mention the users folder view preferences. The toolbar (an explorer band object) is specific to Iceows views, and looks worse and worse the further we get from Win95, where it was originally developed, not to mention that there is no x64 version of it, so it cannot integrate into Windows XP x64 or Vista x64 editions. Development seems completely stalled, and Iceows is ©1998-2003 Raphaël et Béatrice Mounier closed source freeware... as in free beer. Drink it once and then it's gone.

Back to ALZip 6.7 and why I should be recommending a program that will (if you ever need to update from version 6.7) cost you money. Well, ALZip is far more simple to use than many of the other commercial achievers (WinZip, WinRAR, WinAce, StuffIt etc.) and far more presentable than the typical OSS Windows GUI Archivers (7Zip, PeaZip etc.) The most important factor, for me at least, is the context menu functionality, and the number of archive formats supported. ALZip supports 7z, RAR, ACE, ARJ, TGZ, BZ2 as well as Zips and Cabs. It's easy to select which formats it should be associated with before you even run the program. The explorer right click extension is compatible with both x64 and x86 (32-bit) versions of Windows Explorer. The main user interface is still Win32, but since that isn't required to integrate within the 64-bit explorer, it will run happily under Windows built in 32-bit compatibility mode. (you won't even notice unless you check the task in the task manager)

It's not too intrusive, for a commercial product but does contain a number of banner Ads for ALTools in it's user interface. These don't connect to the Internet, and there is no spy-ware, and no nagging about unregistered versions. One of these I found particularly annoying, but if you find this also, you can always use my little patch (obtainable from the right) which removes the banner from the Create, Add, Extract progress dialogues. This is a simple Resource Hack, and modifies no code in the program. So I'm not redistributing modified versions of their code (I hope) only my own code to modify theirs.

Use of this patch, is therefor mine. I give it to you freely, but if you use it, you may be breaching the agreement of the terms of the licence you have with ESTsoft Corp. If they ask me to take my patch down, I will replace it with instructions to allow you to recreate the modification your self... This is just information, given freely and without warranty. I can also assure them that I will not make any such information available for future versions of ALZip, for which free use is no longer available. So if you are not interested in paying for a GUI archive program, I recommend that you get a copy of Version 6.7 before ESTsoft decide to take it down. (as is their prerogative.)

Hacking

As a technical side note which becomes obvious as you start rooting around in the code of ALZip. The first thing which stands out is that the program is written in a reasonably recent version of Borland (Now Embracadero CodeGear) Delphi. Which means is could quite easily be ported to Linux, OS X, .Net with current versions of Delphi or the Open Source Lazarus Project. (I just love linking to them ;) )

The next point one notices is that the entire project UI is built with, and skinned using BusinessSkinForm component from Almediadev. This product, in it's self is not free, and not only suggests that ALZip will never be OSS, but also explains why they are going to have to start charging for it. Hey, it's only about 20 bucks.

The final point I will make, for anyone attempting to customize their own copy for their own personal use without the aid of my patch, is that you will find that the AZMain.dll file (which is used largely like an overlay in a DOS program rather than a true Windows Dynamic Link Library) is encrypted with ASPack. Quite why people insist on this nonsense is quite beyond me... really. If you search your favourite web search engine for UnASPack you will probably find Aaron's Homepage has a copy really quick. It will turn the 303k DLL into a whooping 1.5Meg DLL revealing the Delphi nature of the library, and a number of initialisation routines, and stream dispatchers for handling files and archives. It will also load more quickly and use less system resources during startup. Not withstanding the tripling of the hard disk space it occupies.

Aside from that UnASPacking this DLL (the only one encrypted) get's you very little, unless you want to Olly it to determine how to interface with the sub archive type handling libraries. AzCDImage, Az7z, unacev2, unrar4.

If you really want to get rid of the final banner in the main browser UI, I should look at the YN_BannerCreate function in ALBanner.dll. This library doesn't use DFMs compiled into the resource area of the executable image, but rather manipulates VCL components programmatically. So you will have to do a little Ollying, with a DFM / VCL eye. The object you are looking for is probably TYNBannerPanel.

However, the images are encoded within that library as GIF streams, so you could always take the easy route out, and simply overwrite them with small, single colour GIF images (which will encode to almost nothing and thus not overwrite anything vital). The TGifStream component should stop once the GIF image has been rendered to the DC (Device Context) of the Panel and ignore anything beyond that.

My entire point here, is that the puny protection here doesn't make this program secure from tampering. (though I wouldn't dream of doing it with later versions) And also, that it doesn't really warrant the expected future cost, to users. I do realise that the choice of tools used to rapidly develop such a nice UI require income to support their license, but... now that we have it, I for one wouldn't care if it was written in Lazarus with their VCL equivalents. If it where, it would take on the appearance of my system too, not something that looks half Windows XP and half SUSE Linux.

A Note to the Developers at ESTsoft

ESTsoft; I wish you all the best, your code is great. Unfortunately, I don't think I'll be buying a copy, and I fear this will be the reaction of many private individuals. If you can't turn a profit, please think to release your code to OSS. It's too nice to waste, it's just not worth the cost of your development tools. I fear that your product, while a great program and useful tool, is just too expensive to produce for the value it brings users.

The beauty of Rich Text files

On the 19th of March 2008 Microsoft released the latest incarnation to the Rich Text Format specification 1.9.1 to go with their new Office 2007... Interesting because Office '08 is available on the Apple Mac but the document doesn't mention that, and only shows images from Word 2003 on the PC.

Anyway... I'm working on a program to replace WordPad, not because I don't like WordPad but because I do, I just think that since it hasn't changed since Windows 95, and then not much from Write on Windows 3.x it could do with a little more... especially in the way of internet appliance... read and edit html, blog posts etc. So I'm writing my own, keeping the UI as much like WordPad (or Write) in it's default configuration as possible, keeping the code size small and the startup time fast, and ensuring that my replacement can do everything that the original can.

Access to the Rich Edit component (richedt32.dll or richedt20.dll) is a really quick way of maintaining a simple Word Processor, and it's mostly what has allowed WordPad to remain as current as it is. Every time Microsoft updates Rich Edit, WordPad gets that update automatically, because it's really just a user interface to that library. Of course, as the Rich Edit component gets new features (not just improvements to existing ones) WordPad falls behind... and Rich Edit is notoriously bug ridden from an API point of view. Interfaces that are documented as fixed and working fine don't actually do anything, and ones which are documented as having bugs under specific documented circumstances don't present those bugs under those exact same circumstances, but it's more a documentation issue than a code one... and, as previously stated, the library is now very very old.

So I'm using Rich Edit to get my program up and running. I'm passing Rich Text between it and my filters and modifying it at quite a low level. I'm testing my program with versions of richedt32.dll that came with Windows 95 and ones that come with Vista, and ones that are in the latest SP for NT4 and the compatibility libraries that are packaged with Wine. (Just to be safe) I'm getting Rich Text files from Macs from Next from Linux and Word Processors of every caliber.

"I really ought to know about the state of play with the format it's self, and have some idea how to re-implement or replace this library should the need arise in my program." I thinks... So I asked the inventor of the standard (Microsoft) what their present documentation on this open standard for information interchange is.

I received a docx file... (though it seems they have a .doc up now too)

Okay... I've had docx files before, I've got translation filters for O2k-2k3 and for OOo. They work, not great, but they work. Oh no! Not on this they don't. The tables are a complete mess and, though I can read the words... making sense of the document is a nightmare. It's rather like a complex scientific journal with all the diagrams thrown away, run through a cheap 1980s OCR program and turned into UNIX ASCII text file without any formatting, only worse. There is formatting, it just doesn't resemble the original formatting of the document in any way shape or form.

I don't want Office 2007, I don't use the copies of Office 97, 2000 or 2003 that I legally own. I much prefer to use Open Office, or Word Perfect Office or anything other than Microsoft Office. I've said it before, I'll say it again, it's not that MS Office is bad, I just don't like it. I know they spend a lot of time and effort on getting their UI right, but I'm happy with WordPad, I'm happy with a DOS command prompt and bash scripts, it's just who I am. I'll spend hours replacing Explorer with little third party desktops, Icon widgets, launch bars and file browsers, I like things to look good, but I need to be able to make them look and act the way I want, not the way your panel of testers say is ergonomically correct for the majority. There is no "I" in democracy, and "I" want "My PC" to work how "I" want, not how the majority vote it should, it's not their PC, they can get their own.

So now I've used Microsoft's Live Writer software to write and upload my winge about their best seller onto their servers, they can shoot me for stealing their software (for about a day), I implemented the 90 day trial of Office 2007 in a virtual machine, read this file and promptly removed it again by going back 1 snapshot. About as legal as I could get away with, and way too much effort just to read a document that is supposed to enable free transfer of information between diverse systems. (it's only not really legal because it's wasn't my copy of the trail, and I because I undid the drive rather than uninstalled, so I could theoretically install it again sometime down the road)

So how Open is Microsoft's Open XML file format? Not very it seems. I can read an ODT file anywhere I can read Google, which is even on a Phoney Praystation! Yet I can't read a docx even on my Microsoft Vista PC with Office 03... and if reports are to be believed, it will be hard to read them on versions of Office yet to come if MS are to implement their own ISO standard format which isn't compatible with the existing docx at all.

Sigh.

Office 2k7 Hate (my hate, you can love it all you like)

While on the MSO chat, and yes I know I was going to bring you W2.0 Spreadsheets next, I will get there I promise, I have to add my tuppenith worth on Clippy and the Ribon. Yea, I hated Mr. Clippit (otherwise known as Clippy the paperclip Office Assistant) though I will miss Paws (the Cat) and Albert (the Genius) more importantly, I miss menus and toolbars. I only wanted to load this file and save it as something I could use... I ended up spending the day loading XP, Office 07 and boxing with a constantly changing blue ribbon... Every time I found an option I wanted to use, I'd move the cursor to where I wanted to apply that tool or effect and... hey! Where'd it go? Everything's changed!

Blue Ribbons should remain fiendishly tasty and reasonably priced chocolate wafer snacks and stay the hell off my PC is all I can say. You want a revolutionary new design? Try putting the toolbars down the sides instead of up the top... have you tried using O2k7 on a widescreen display? Very popular these days... not very practical for word processing, but with OOo I can pin all my toolbars and property pages, document navigation and defined paragraph formats on the sides, maximizing the vertical document editing space, and making practical use of the extra screen width. OOo wins!!! The Office Suite of the future! Hooray!

Okay... so I managed to get O2k7 running in my VM (ugly as it is, at 1024x576 I could get about 3 lines of 8 point text in at page width before the ribbon, and had 3 pixel high text at 80% document view where I could at least see a whole paragraph.), and loaded the docx. Hooray! The page numbers matched the pages, and the tables had columns below them that actually related to the column headers.

So I saved my document out as a .doc, and a .odt, and an rtf, and a PDF and an XPS. "That, I should be able to do something with" I thought, and ditched 2k7 like the shallow painted tart it is.

Getting Something Useful

Reading any of these documents in anything else was quite a trial however. WordPad seemed to do the best job with the Rich Text file. But of course it doesn't support document links, page breaks and a myriad of other features that are actually quite useful in a 278 page document.

The PDF and XPS are fine for reading, but the document was locked from editing or copy and paste. So copying the source code would be a matter of printing and re-typing. That's not very practical either. The .doc file read back about as well as the docx via translation filters, and it turns out (after much re-working of the internals of the file, trying to maintain the layout and feel) that most of what is wrong with it, is that it has been written by someone who has no idea how to use a professional document editing tool like Word. (or rather, it appeared to have been worked on by several someone's, at least one of whom had a very good idea how to manage a large document in a decent word processor, but sadly they weren't in charge of managing the consistency of the document)

The tables, messed up, because they were full of 0 width columns that had been created part way down the table by splitting cells and rather than removing un-necessary columns, they were just shifted along until they met the boundary of the next and / or previous one. Fields had (at some stage) been used to create the page numbers in the contents section, but then they were converted to constants, and links were made to _toc1354375138 named bookmarks which resided at the same point as a decently named and perfectly linkable heading.

I know I've taken word processing courses, and am IT literate enough to get around these things... I know that many of my collogues in programming and system maintenance haven't and or aren't, but surely Microsoft could get a secretarially trained document specialist to collate the information from the techies?

Anyway. I reworked this document in OOo Writer, and in AbiWord and in a little gem known as Jarte (which reads both the .doc and .docx formats as well as .rtf, with the right filters, but sadly goes the way of 2k7 in UI design) and now I have the document in a form that is instantly useable by almost anybody.

One Document to Rule them all...

So, before I upset Microsoft again by republishing their hard work in an edited form, here are some interesting details about this document.

Size (one of the reasons Microsoft cite for the switch to docx):-

Okay... so docx is a lot smaller than a .doc... but not all that much smaller than the zipped .doc, and .docx wont zip because it's already in a .zip file, just like an .odt.

MSOffice makes smaller PDFs, but it used JPEG compression on images even against my wishes, and made a horrible PDF which compressed worse than the originally larger OOo version.

By horrible, I mean the navigation is just every possible link to location in the left hand side with no levels what-so-ever. OOo made a PDF with pull out navigation tree that mimicked the contents of the document.

RTF actually zips quite nicely. I'd say a PDF in a Zip is a pretty good binary distribution form.

XPS files are pretty big, and not so easy to navigate as PDFs. I don't really see what Microsoft is trying to achieve here... other than that it is a plain text XML format in a Zip just like odts and docxs so it doesn't need decompiling to edit the way a PDF does, a simple unzip will do.

The formats which aren't zipped (or compiled binary) already actually pack down smaller than most of the Zipped xml formats... so we're really not saving any space at all, intact, we're loosing it, you can't RAR, ACE or 7ZIP a zip it just doesn't work. (Most modern PDFs should be Flate compressed, the same as a zip, though how thoroughly is up to the creator)

Also of interest, I have discovered that if I unzip a .docx .odt or .xps and pack it back up with ALZip (which isn't the best Zip program by any stretch, but it's cute, small fast and very easy to use) the files become smaller... changing the resultant zips extension back to .docx .odt or .xps makes them still perfectly readable in their new smaller size.

I've tried to get this document to open legibly in as many readily available packages as possible. I've tried Atlantis Nova, Angel Writer, QJot etc etc all of which I consider in some way to be competitors for my up coming WordPad replacement.

Most struggle with the tables. Some, most notably AbiWord, struggle with the sheer size of the document. Jarte reads the whole file, but stops counting the pages when they reach 59, and only saves that many pages.  Angel Writer copes with all the formatting best, but doesn't implement pages or wrap to ruler so you can't really treat it like a mark up for a paper document. WordPad copes the best, but again, page breaks just don't happen as it has no idea what a "page" is till you hit print preview... but at least it knows what the ruler is. The Math functions are very new in Rich Text, and most either ignore them, or turn them into WMF objects inserted into the document. Saving from MSO to an odt file removes them all together, replacing them with the plain text of the variables and little or no math symbols.

The main editing I did is in OOo, my favourite of all. This required considerable effort to take full advantage of the package and it's different (broader ISO standard) Open XML document features.

Open Document Text files implement Math based largely on the older Open XML Math functions of MathML, where Microsoft's Open XML documents are based on their own proprietary markup.

Apparently, Word (prior to 2007) couldn't include math layouts at all. So I'm guessing the Math Markup tool that I used to use in Word 97 was simply embedding a DDE Object. I'm sure I used to do something like this in Lotus AmiPro too back in the 90s, but I know it's something that the LaTeX people have winged and whined about for years, so I guess I'm not all that surprised.

From what I can see, OOos Math injection works out in such a way as you could almost execute it, though you might have to strip a few fluffy formatie bits out here and there that will make no difference to the function of the formula at all, just make it look neater. Microsoft's is much more like laying out a User Interface or a Web Page. It would never run, as code, but the presentation description is quite exact, giving exact measurements in twips and the like. This smells of fluff to me, and doesn't make for a very transportable language at all. Nobody (that I know of) other than Microsoft use a twip as a measurement... and when you're looking at a hard copy document, surely a point or fraction of an inch would be more helpful.

Anyway, what I can agree on is some of the fantastic ways to align formula elements in Microsoft's format. In OOo, the best means of doing this (according to the help) seems to be to align to some edge or other, and pad with one of two relative width white space items, or a phantom object. Microsoft use phantoms too, you can give them no width, or no height but assume their other dimension is the same size as it would be if you included the code / function which it isn't going to display. That doesn't make much sense, but if I have a word "fourtytwo" and I want to line up the word "ant" to one side of it, and the word "dog" to the other but don't want to see the word "fourtytwo" just yet, I can use a phantom of it to measure how long that word would be in the present font and style, and align "ant" and "dog" to that phantom without displaying "fourtytwo".

The Win32 API has a similar function to this in it's repertoire, and when arranging user interface components that appear and disappear as they become relevant (like a ribbon) but must align up regardless of the users preferred font and screen DPI whether they are visible or not (so they don't more around like the ribbon) it is essential to know how long or tall a string will render in a given font at a given DPI without having to draw it just so you can measure it's bounding boxes.

In Math it's more useful to have the brackets from one side of a formula line up with ones on the other side, even though the balance of glyphs within them may vary greatly, so it's clear that you are balancing an equal or equivalent equation, regardless of any variance in glyph ink weight. When you write a mathematical formula, your artists eye automatically does this, (even if you're a mathematician and not an artist) but for a computer, it's not instinctively clear, and since it's logically irrelevant, it can get it seriously wrong.

Regardless, I couldn't find anything listed in the possibilities for 2007 Math Markup that I couldn't do in OOo Writer. Except knowing and setting exactly how many twips might be between one glyph and another. Many things that had different ways to achieve different things in MSO, used different parameters to the same method in OOo, and some needed cheaty work around's like manually shifting the size of individual symbols relative to the whole formula to get the same basic look.

Some features Microsoft considers part of the Math, which OOo treats as object decoration. Boxes around formula, for example. Once a formula is composed in OOo, it is a graphical object on the page, just like a graph or a photo. So just like a graph or a photo it can have a border, and you can control it's justification and it's position relative to the anchor point and the way words and paragraphs wrap to it. Microsoft seems to take a formula as a paragraph, not an object on the page, and so you define it's distance from things, it's alignment and borders within the mathematical paragraph. So maybe all the talk about not having millions of ways to do the same basic thing any more in Office 2007 was all just smoke and mirrors after all. (Don't get upset, I know that's out of context and they were talking about UI design not file formatting and underlying code)

Once I had made the alterations necessary to make the formula work in OOo correctly, and display as they did (plus or minus the odd twip) I had already put considerable effort into making a maintainable odt file. So, I went ahead and saved the source for the example RFT reader to a folder and zipped it up, applied a common font to the code (because it was irregular and all over the place from various edits) and took the liberty of applying standard schintilla syntax highlighting to it. I know most of this won't print, but it makes it easier to read on screen. I re-aligned some of the comments here and there too.

Between fixing the empty half columns and broken tables, messing with formula and this that and the other the page numbers were now skewed, and as I say the TOC was no longer linked to page numbers via functions (though you can see it was at some time) so I re-built the Contents page using OOos locked contents object, and configured it to maintain the same formatting as Microsoft had used.

Sharing the Fruits of my Labours

Then I moved on to creating a clean PDF from all this. I had the one Word created, and hotlinks did work, but as I say, the side index (or bookmarks) it exported where a complete mess, the XPS doesn't even seem to maintain a document navigator. The file size of my new PDF was quite a bit bigger, but I know that OOo creates complete and clean PDFs not optimized for downloading, so I ran it through a compressor, and was amazed at the difference, the document even loaded in a flash compared even to the MS export and had it's beautiful TOC at the side, so I tried the compressor on the MS document (which I will keep as a reference to the original formatting of the document). The result was less impressive, but that may be because Jpegs don't re-compress as well as lossless images. Even so, the time taken to load is a great improvement, and the size decrease is not inconsiderable.

I'm not sure if you can do this with XPS files, but a PDF can have other files attached to it, just like an Email can. I wanted to use this to attach the zip I made of the example source file, so I attached the zip to the page where the source code starts with another little PDF tool I downloaded.

Now, you can have the choice of reading this document in two flavors of PDF, (I recommend my OOo reconditioned version, unless you are a stickler for authenticity) as an XPS or a Rich Text file, and the PDFs will have a zip containing all the source and a make file for building your very own Rich Text Format file reader.

Links to these files in my public Sky Drive can be found here, and will remain here until Microsoft take them down, or ask me to do so for them. Personally, I hope they don't take offense to my redistribution... In fact, they can give me a job. ;)    PS. The Zip contains the Rich Text export from Word 2007.

Okay... I know I've gotten other posts to put up but I had to comment on this while it's fresh.

Microsoft have bid $44.6bn to take over Yahoo from it's share holders this Friday and it's all over the news.

Their proposed aim in this take-over? "Today this market is increasingly dominated by one player. Together, Microsoft and Yahoo! can offer a competitive choice while better fulfilling the needs of customers and partners" Everyone is pointing to the "dominated by one player" part as being a reference to Googles recent acquisitions of DoubleClick and the Googlesyndication advertising ring, AdSense and AdWords Google Analytics... which actually benefits Googles search database as well... hence why a Google search is far more relevant than a Yahoo one in most cases.

TBH, I was a big Excite fan... I flowed easily to AltaVista, but haven't used them over Google in some considerable time... largely because they now use the Yahoo engine and database... why Yahoo still keep the AltaVista page I'm not entirely sure. I used to use AllTheWeb... but in all honesty, their database has become seriously out-of-date, and the specific FTP and Gopher searches are no longer available in the usable way they used to be. So Google is in-deed the only real player in the Search engine field. Microsoft's Live! search out strips a Yahoo search (IMHO) and their HotBot is nearly as good as a DogPile search. So what do they think Yahoo will gain them over Google?

Let's look at the three companies side by side, to see what they offer:-

Yup... I used a Google Sheet. Well, I still don't even have the Beta of Office Live! I am promised... so...

So... from this we can see that Microsoft would gain only 6 points in competition with Google. They could also gain 10 services that they don't currently have, and neither do Google. However, we could potentially loose 34 services from Yahoo, which Microsoft already have.

Looking more closely, Microsoft has always been keen to leave Avatars to others... so I think they will just kill that if they take over Yahoo. I don't really see why they'd want Yahoo Notes, unless they want to expand Live! Lists. Advanced searches are not really in their interest, as narrowing your search criteria narrows their ability to throw marketing at you, and on that point, Microsoft are not very good at marketing anyone but Microsoft. I don't think they will pick up all the companies who currently place Ads with Yahoo, because they probably go to Yahoo because they are Microsoft and / or Google competitors. Microsoft's Live! search technology, while no Google or Spotlight, is as good, if not better than Yahoos' engine so they can't want that, and we should also remember that we will be loosing AltaVista as well as Yahoo.

If we loose Yahoo, we loose Yahoo Widgets, (formally Konfabulator) which spawned Apples Dashboard Widgets... and for what? That code can't be re-used in Vista Side Bar or Live! Gadgets. It's Java not .NET / Avalon / WPF.

If Microsoft want any of that lot... It's probably Yahoos mobile technology (but IMHO their market placing would kill it, even it they had it) and Bable Fish. There was a time when Bable Fish was a huge asset on the Web... now it has many competitors, and some are based on considerably better (faster and more accurate) engines than Bable.

I can't see MS carrying on with GeoCities, and Bill Gates recent philanthropy aside, if MS wanted a Microsoft for Good they could do it without buying Yahoo.

No... I don't think this is about increasing consumer quality and choice. I don't think it's about Microsoft beating Google, or even Google beating Microsoft. It's about Microsoft kicking Yahoo while they are down. It's about one less competitor for Microsoft.

Oddly enough... I think it could well become more about one less competitor for Google, which will place Google in an even better position to make Microsoft's strangle hold on PCs irrelevant.

If Microsoft wanted to go up against Google, they should start selling Microsoft Linux, buy out ThinkFree Office, SlideShare and or Wordsmith. They should stop working on Silverlight and concentrate on technologies closer to AJAX and XUL, which can operate across multiple platforms.

I know Microsoft have this mind set, that if it's not Windows only it needs to be bought out, and versions for other platforms killed off, or just stamped on till it dies, but the Web is changing how we look at applications. It really won't matter if you're using a Windows, Linux, Apple, BSD, Sun, X-Box or Playstation to use your applications... just so long as they can get on line and run Web 2.0 XHTML, AJAX, Java, JavaScript and Flash.

MS Office will not stand up to that, unless it steps up to it. Windows will not last in it's present incarnations... not even Vista. Linux' Wine and ReactOS are already more compatible with legacy Win32 applications than 64-bit versions of Windows. In Wines case, even on 64 bit versions of Linux or BSD. .NET is an arse when compared with present Sun offerings and delight the Mono Open Source cross platform equivalents, it's just doesn't port as easily or as well. WPF and IE7 are too little too late.

Yes, I use Windows XP. I own Vista, but I don't use it. I don't see the point in using it, as opposed to SUSE, PC-BSD or MacOS. If I had the cash or I could freely run it on any hardware, I'd use MacOS. I can run both Wine and Windows XP proper, and get all the benefits of true Unix and Mac only applications. Oh yea, and IEEE1394 works properly with ease without having to boot the thing and keep winding tapes back and forth and rebooting the computer just to remove a drive with a filesystem that isn't 30 years old. If I wanted the best value for money modern OS I would probably use Ubuntu or PC-BSD.

The stand-alone Desktop PC is becoming as irrelevant as the Mainframe computer, at which point, your choice of OS, and your choice of browser becomes just that... your choice. It makes little or no difference, in the long run, with your use of the computer / terminal. The applications you use, the things you do, games you play etc will all have to be on-line services designed to fit any box (with sufficient processing power and audio visual capabilities and user input) you care to connect with.

Even after the beating Sun took from Microsoft over the Java court cases, I think Sun (especially after their recent acquisition of mySQL, and the prolific use of OpenOffice on any non-Windows platform) and Google with their cross-platform in-browser technology and well known brand are far better suited to be a threat to MS than Yahoo, who are simply a service provide lightening the Microsoft server and competition load. To kill off (buy out) Yahoo is somewhat political suicide IMHO. It gains them little and looses them a fair chunk of a market they need to move to, if they are to continue their success story.

I wouldn't normally mind the idea of Microsoft going down the swanny, but taking user choices for the future with them is offensive to me in the extreme. And in all honesty... this new emerging market they need to move to, is one I think they are well positioned to server users well in. One I would like to see them succeed at, but one which I think they are going about entirely the wrong way.

I can only urge Yahoo shareholders not to take this offer. For the sake of Yahoo, the sake of Microsoft, and the sake of the Internet community. I also urge users of the Internet to take up in Yahoos defense, should they defy the man from MS publicly.

Okay. Rant over. Please feel free to comment.

Introducing Web 2.0

Okay... today I'm going to blog about On-Line Web Based Productivity applications.

The buzzword is "Web 2.0" which makes it sound like it's some new standard to replace the existing World Wide Web with something new, the Web evolved or something. It's not that at all, well not really. While Web 2.0 is an evolution in Web technology, it's one that has been happening for the past 10-20 years or so, so there's no need to panic and update your browser or contact your ISP about upgrading to Web 2.0... If you do they will probably either laugh at you, or bill you more for the same service.

What makes a web site "Web 2.0" is kind-of grey and fuzzy, the fact is that there are a number of technologies which have been making web pages far more interactive than the original W3C standard alone allows for. Things like Adobes' (formerly Macromedia) Flash, Suns Java, JavaScript, Active Server Pages and other CGI scripting technologies using Perl, PHP and back end databases typically using SQL... added with the specification of W3C standard CSS to create DHTML or Dynamic HTML. Some reasonably bright bods have managed to make these technologies work together in a manner which means that web pages can be as fast and productive as any application on your desktop.

The challenge, up until recently, has been to get each of those parts working together dynamically enough to be effective from the users point of view, without being so restrictive that the user interface is limited to a point where it is difficult for users to transition from working off-line to working on-line.

As I say... this internet integration with the desktop experience has been going on for a long time. Microsoft introduced Active Desktop with IE 4 back on Windows 95 along with the Channel Bar. (Two "features" I hated with a vengeance... but then I had only got 56k dial-up) Yahoo Widgets (formally Konfabulator) and many other desktop Weblets have existed improving this somewhat failed idea, but the timing seems to be right... I believe much of it is about availability of broadband internet and the reduced frustration with slowly downloading pages that cost 45p a minuet, and as web consumers we are all getting much happier about Automatic Updates, XML RSS News Feeds on our desktop and regularly updated Podcasts and instant messaging. There is also a tendency to think of the internet as the World Wide Web. The idea that if it's anything to do with the internet I must have to click the Big Blue E on my desktop or the Compass on my Dock (I'm sorry, but Linux users typically have a more cultured view of internet use) is common place. While we still like to use a separate eMail client, even that is quite commonly done in a web browser when we're not in the office.

Corporate astonishment at employees desire to use the office bandwidth for instant messaging where they wouldn't dream of making personal calls without getting permission has lead to web based access to instant messaging becoming common place, (Thus bypassing the corporate firewalls port blocks on common IM protocols) and so, about the only thing we use a program other than our web browser to access the net is high performance video games and Peer2Peer file sharing. Incidentally, the Phosphor project demonstrates how "high performance" this Browser platform can be, even for video games.

But if instant messaging can operate fast enough, with a presentable enough user interface that people can hold fluent conversations... why can't we do our Word Processing and Spreadsheets in a web page?

Well, the short answer is that you can... and with the current cost of Microsoft Office, and the incompatibility issues with their Works suite, when your out of the workplace, and have access to the internet, you certainly might just as well. (YMMV, but I feel that a home office suite compatible with the workplace should not cost more than about £60 absolute tops. I think Microsoft Office is worth about £25, and definitely not more than a PS3 / X360 Game considering the effort and usefulness of each)

Oh no, Another Anti-Microsoft Rant

Okay... quick pointer about bias. I do, and have always hated Microsofts' Office Suite. It's popularity is (IMHO) purely because it's files have become "a standard" and so it's use has become "a standard". I accept that for many people it is the only tool they know to do the job, and it's far easier to do a job with a tool you know. Presently, although I know that Microsoft have put a lot of effort into improving it's Office product range, I strongly believe that they are asking to high a price for a collection of (while graphically very attractive, in their latest 2007 incarnation) awkward and clumsy tools with proprietary file standards which only became standard in the first place because it came "free" with every new computer purchased.

It's not that it's really really bad software. It's just that it really isn't worth the price they are asking... even in the OEM or Volume Licensing schemes. Especially not when there are cheep to free alternatives like the 602 Suite, OpenOffice, KOffice (soon to be released for Windows and Mac as well as Linux) or combinations like Gnumeric and AbiWord, and I've never felt that it was up to the standard of Lotus SmarSuite or Corel WordPerfect Office Suite, which retail at similarly high prices. So, it's neither cheep nor good, but merely average quality, expensive software. (IMHO)

It's not my place to tell people where to buy their software and I don't hate Microsoft so much I avoid all their products simply because they are Microsoft products. Notice, I'm blogging on a Microsoft Live Space!? There are Microsoft products use and pay for and feel I have got a good deal. I am, however aware that Microsoft has a brand name equivalent to the vast dominance of the total software sales, and that that brand awareness can both carry a price tag, and stifle awareness and therefore take-up of many, arguably more competitive alternatives. What I do feel it is my place to do, as one with an eye on the ground in these areas, is to inform others of the availability of such... and point out the pros and cons of each choice they may make.

The On-Line Office Alternative

Okay, back to the point. What are the options for working your office productivity life without software? And more to the point, what are the advantages and disadvantages?

Well, I've already mentioned Microsofts' 2007 edition of Office, and if you're still using an older version there are some features of the new line up which you should probably be aware of, as you make your decision to upgrade or wait. I've personally found alternate versions of Office to be more acceptable than the next, 2000 is my favorite of all time, XP defaulted completely back to front, looked goofy and had more nag screens than most unregistered shareware, 2003 is much better, 2007 looks remarkably like a low cost budget Office suite and seems (to my eyes) to insist that the user go back to the start of their learning curve... and, as previously stated, pay through the nose for the privilege. Then again, I also said it has some new features and that Microsoft have worked hard to make improvements.

So what are they, and what does this have to do with On-Line Web 2.0 productivity suites? Well, firstly that "standard" office file format has been kind-of thrown to the wind, for a start off. Office 2007 now works on a more open standard XML file format for all it's files, and your file names will have a new "X" appended to the extension (if you show extensions for common file types) to indicate this. XML is of course a Web standard. It places database style information in a plain text file which can easily be transmitted across systems with varying Operating Systems, Time Zones and language configurations without loss or corruption. That brings us to the second part of the question, what does Office 2007 have to do with Web 2.0 Productivity Suites. Well, though Office isn't a MS Product I beta, I am on the beta users lists at Microsoft and get a lot of info on what is going on, and what they are planning. Office 2007 was originally slated to be an on-line only application.

The original idea (as I understood it) was to have a small program which users downloaded, which gave them access to all their documents on-line. The user would no longer be able to save to "My Documents" or eMail their work, and would then be able to get to their documents from any machine which had the new Office installed on it. They would not pay for the download, which would be a constantly maintained package on their system, updated regularly and automatically from the net. Instead they would have to pay a rental fee on their on-line Office space.

The arguments then came back "What about my accounts Spreadsheets? I don't want Microsoft to have access to those?", "How do I share sensitive files with my work collogues and not the rest of the world?", "What about backup? If Microsoft loose my data will I have to sue them?" and the whole idea was put back for a re-think. It's still on the boards though, and you can sign up for a Beta test of Microsofts' Office Live Workspace... I have, and will review it here when it's open, but you have to pre-register to get in.

I Want it Now Now Now!

Of course you do, and others, possibly with less to lose, possibly with more forethought and defiantly with more to gain have already got on-line productivity suites available for your Web 2.0 machine.

I'm going to review 3 packages which (while all still claiming to be Beta) are fairly mature, and usable for a variety of purposes, and mentioning a couple of less critical or less complete applications along the way. The systems I've found most useful are Zoho, ThinkFree Office and Google Docs...? Google? Oh my goodness, they really do have their fingers in every pie now don't they? It's been said before that Google is the new Microsoft, just as Microsoft was the new IBM... This may be true, but I won't bias against Google any more than I bias against MS. With any of these large corporations it is always worth remembering how much you let them know about you... especially where your business and accountancy is concerned.

There are other systems out there, especially if you have a Web Server with Server Side Scripting on which you are prepared (or may even prefer) to host such services yourself. Remember, if you own the server, you are the only one who controls who can see what's on it.

Reviews

I tried all parts of each set of applications, on as many current browsers as I could. I shall review each application by the type of document it handles, though the variety of applications by each provider differs somewhat. I've noted file compatibility, document sharing and collaboration features, and the quality of document translation as fully as I can, in a real-world context.

The browsers I had available to me, and tested were IE7 (Version 7.0.5730.11), Safari 3.0.3(522.15.5), Firefox 2 (Version 2.0.0.8), Maxton 2 (Version 2.0.4.5799) and Avant (11.5 Build 21).

Documents

All three services provide a document service, and ThinkFree actually offer two.

Google

Google Documents is the lightest of the three. The options for formatting are limited but more than adequate. The user interface is clean and simple, and operation is very fast, even on a very modest system. It's also the most heavily web based system... and tested very well on all the browsers I tried. The features it dose support are far superior to WordPad, Write, or Apples TextEdit application, and far superior to the Word Processors I remember back in the days of DOS. It's closer to the original Word for Windows or Works for Windows, Claris Works on Classic Macs etc.

You won't see features like Mail Merge, Forms based templates or WordArt. On the other hand, it can produce far better html output than Word. Of course it does... your looking at it in your web browser aren't you?

The available fonts are limited to commonly accepted fonts for Web Pages, but then, how many fonts do you really need? We don't seem to notice the limited number of fonts on the Web, and every letter I receive in the post seems to use some form of Helvetica clone (Lucida Grande / Arial) type font, or a Times (Times New Roman / Garamon / Baskerville) type font... Deco fonts are rare outside publishing houses and the classroom, since they just aren't pleasant on the eyes.

Clipart, photos, graphs, charts and editable tables are all highly doable, and word wrapping options are complete with no problems. Having said that, you would have to have Table formatting, since there is no tab bar, and no indication of the margins of the page. Words wrap around the paragraph like a web page, and are only fixed to the margins when you choose to print. It's also, only at the print stage that you get to choose between European and US paper sizes.

Print quality is fairly reasonable. However, with the variable page size, I have had images end up overlapping tables when you come to print out. Of course you can always save a PDF and print that instead. This is a good call if you are not sure of the print quality or availability of your web browser.

  Speaking of which, the export options are well rounded. Word Documents, Portable Documents (Largely read only, but available on any system), OpenOffice Documents ("Open Document Text", the Industry agreed standard XML based document, supported by just about everything EXCEPT Microsoft Office), RTF Rich Text (the older standard cross-platform editable formatted text format), Plain ASCII Text and HyperText Markup are all available for export and most for import. If you can find a Word Processor or Text Editor that can't support one of these formats, you are a better software hunter than I... then again, why would you want it?

Working with the system is a breeze, once you get over the initial learning curve. Right clicking context menus and such are pretty much like any generic word processor. The Tabbed interface is actually really nice for switching the context of the toolbar, and economic on screen real estate. Sending a Google Doc via eMail sends an HTML eMail which is infinitely more accessible to everyone than an attached Word Document. If print formatting is a concern, I'd advise attaching a PDF rather than the Word format, especially as this will resolve any font issues, unless you really want the person receiving it to edit it and send it back. That practice, however, should become a thing of antiquity if Web 2.0 Apps take off as they should, since you can simply provide a collaboration link in the eMail and then they can edit it on-line, from your space.

The Revisions tab also adds a feature not commonly found on desktop PCs at present. Should you find, for any reason that you want to go back to an earlier version of the document, you can do so quite simply with this feature. I often see people with backups of older versions of their documents, frequently because they haven't gotten around to creating a template and working up new documents from that, but then, if the feature isn't used... there must be something wrong with it? Right? It may be that it simply isn't publicised well enough in the application, or that us techie types who end up doing most of the training have no need for it, and neglect to pass the details on to the office admins for whom it is a real time saver. In any case... Revisions is not so advanced an idea, but infinitely easier to manage, and, in Google Docs at least, very clearly visible feature.

Just so you know, this feature is now premiering on the new Mac OS X 10.4 Leopard OS released this month where it is available for any file produced in any application on the PC. I haven't Betaed Leopard so I really can't say much about how it works there, but the concept was familiar to me from Google Docs & Spreadsheets. There are High End or Experimental Linux/Unix Filesystems with this capability, essentially trying to get around the Hot-Desking "Trash Can" vs. restoring from a Tape Backup problem. Again, this solution is not as simple as Googles.

Google Docs is also available on mobile phones and PDAs...

ThinkFree Office

ThinkFree is the opposite in most respects, both in regard to Documents and every other form of file. Their whole premise is to make you think you have MS Office in a Web Page. The colour of the toolbars here is grey only because that's how my desktop theme is, and how it know's what theme I'm using, I couldn't say. The look is almost identical to Office 2003, the feel is the same, and the features are not far short.

A page is a page in ThinkFree, Documents are Word Documents, and the Tab bar is fully functional, as this rather complex document clearly shows... Actually, compared to the original OpenOffice document I formatted up from the ReadMe.txt file that came with SYSLINUX, there are some minor line spacing issues... but OpenOffice isn't MS Office is it?

ThinkFree produces excellent PDF output too, and considering the number of PDF writer plugins sold for use in Office, and the number of free and commercial PDF Printer simulations, this is probably quite a big factor in ThinkFrees' favor. Of course the same goes for the other offerings, but none of them are quite as completely Office like as ThinkFree.

The biggest let down of ThinkFree is the import & export formats. The image illustration is from the Premium Desktop version (more on that later) and yet still, aside from the PDF, Rich Text and HTML formats, the only availability is Word, and some formats which are hardly appropriate for this kind of file.

SVG files are similar to uncompressed PDF files, a rather less branded version of Adobes PostScript or the Macromedia (now also Adobe) Flash files. XML is a very standard format, but without formatting as MS or OpenDocument there is no context to make sense of an XML file as a word processed document. Plain Text is as Plain Text does. It's unformatted, and quite honestly, you don't need a word processor for that.

On the plus side of this, it does support both traditional Word (97-2000) format files and the new Word 2007 DocX files, and as a free converter it scores over the Microsoft filter in being bi-directional and installation free.

All the fonts on the system you are working on are available in ThinkFree, just as they are in Word. However, in terms of collaboration, this could be a negative, unless you can guarantee that all collaborators have access to the fonts you are using and will stick rigidly to those fonts in any edits they make.

The other big let down is the speed and responsiveness. The illustration to the right is one of 3 to 5 which attempt to keep you amused as the system gets going. Although it is supposedly cached, that assumes that you (or someone else) uses the same machine to access ThinkFree regularly, and as open access machines keep caches for different users in different places, and often clear them at log off anyway, I don't find this assurance very comforting. The mention of Network Speed is not very reassuring either, I use a 20Meg/sec connection at home, and the initial start up was like waiting for YouTube to start on 56K Dial-up. Successive openings were about 1/3 or the time, but that's still quite long enough to get the gist of the splash pages.

On the other hand ThinkFree Premium Desktop allows you to keep the application on your computer (for free) and work on documents off-line, and upload them to your 1GB ThinkFree space when you choose to go (on-line) work on them away from home or the office, and re-sync your TFP space with your TFO space later on.

If you're worried about syncing up your office Mac with your home Windows/Linux box or Laptop, fret no longer, as TFOffice Premium is a Java Application and will run on any system with the Sun Java VM Framework installed and up to date, and is available in an OS X package, a Windows Setup.exe and a Linux shell install.

I haven't attempted to make any of these work on my PC-BSD box yet, but either Wine or a BSD BASH shell script should cope with this task admirably. The on-line, in your browser version, of course will work on absolutely any OS, and I see no reason why QNX or BeOS (or derivatives) couldn't run it just as well, provided you can get a current version of Java installed. If you know differently please let me know, as this is actually an important consideration here. The requirements Google Docs & Spreadsheets places on the browser are much less stringent, but we should also consider that most mobile phones can run Java applications to some extent.

The GB spelling checker is very good, and that also important for this implementation, as browser based based spelling plugins (which I commonly use in both IE and Firefox) will not pick up spelling errors inside the Java application.

It's my feeling that ThinkFree is targeted at a slightly different audience than Google. Where Google are going for the user who has the occasional need to draft something up before going to work, or people who have a need to perform collaborative documentation across organisations with vastly different IT infrastructures, ThinkFree is definitely targeting people who like Office, but don't like the amount of hard disk space, compatibility issues, system slowdown on occasional use, and high purchase price of that package. The TCO (total cost of ownership) that Microsoft frequently sight as one of their server systems greatest benefits (and I think that is a fair claim) are clearly not followed through with their productivity suite. If they don't wise up, I can see this as a positive alternative for many users.

Zoho

Zoho Writer sits nicely in between the two alternatives. There are a wide selection of tools, the layout is much more like a word processing application than a web page, and yet the application clearly is running in the browser without any VM Applet layer. Nothing is installed on a regular system, and response is good.

Zoho Writer imports and exports all the regular standard formats of word processed document, though it lacks the Word 2007 DOCX format which allows ThinkFree to act as an effective converter between Word 97-2003 and the newer 2007 form. It does still list the older Sun Star Office format over Google, but current versions of Star Office should also support the Open Document format, since Star Office is only a commercial version of OpenOffice.

Many of the people who worked on the Open Document standard have contributed heavily to that Open Source project, leading to Open Document files being the standard for OpenOffice.

That said, if you are interested in obtaining the commercial Star Office from Sun, over the freeware open source OpenOffice, but would rather not pay the $69.95 (at time of writing) that Sun are asking for a direct sale, Google are offering version 8 (the current version, again at time of writing) as part of the Google Pack. Their asking price is nothing, and they assure that this is no trial, and not sponsored. However, I couldn't say that I would expect the support line offered by Sun to be extended to Google Pack sub-licensees. OpenOffice has a very active User Support forum on-line, so the only reason I can see for wanting to use Star Office, is that technical support help line, but I imagine Google would support their sub-licence just as they do the other Pack programs.

My biggest quibble with Zoho is that, like Google, it doesn't support tab points properly. There is a tab bar in Zoho, so there must be some intention for this feature, and Tabs do work, provided you don't want anything other than standard 1" left aligned Tabs.

Again, with my formatted SysLinux document you can see that the Light Blue code section headings should be aligned left, with the areas of the script that this element is applicable to, aligned hard to the right margin. That, doesn't happen. The rendering of the boxed out sections is pretty good, though none of the products managed the shadow I assigned in my desktop word processor.

Zoho have a nice plugins for Firefox and IE6+ called QuickRead which allow you to view common office documents you might find laying around the Web, inside your browser window without starting another application. They also provide a special version formatted for use on your Apple iPhone called iZoho... I imagine this would work well on PDAs other Smart Phones and even devices like iPod Touch or Sony PSP. And they have a plugin for Microsoft Office, meaning you can move gradually to on-line working, and retain the speed and efficiency of your office environment while accessing your files on the go in a lower performance environment.

There are code inserts for Blogs and FaceBooks, space to upload files to instead of attaching them to eMails and a whole slew of other document sharing and conversion tools and APIs available, and server systems for corporate users who wish to brand Zoho products and provide the service to their employees themselves as part of their corporate business strategy.

All in, I have to say, I think Zoho have a lot to offer and deserve to succeed in a big way... if they don't I it will only be through poor marketing.

Word Processing Summery

You can check out the original print formatting of that SysLinux Document on my Public SkyDrive with the link below.

It was produced in OpenOffice from a plain text file.

Features

Next Time

Okay... I've delayed this as much as I can, and it's already a huge post. Personal stuff has come up that I need to sort out, but I plan to release the next post about on-line Spreadsheets, then Presentation, then Databases and other tools.

So I'll see you all next time.

Aside Note: Please note that I prefer to Link than Cite. You can verify my comments or statements, many of which are my own personal opinion and many are contested / contestable. There are those that agree and those who don't. My links are intended to give you a starting point in understanding where my views and information come from, and decide if you agree with them or think I'm talking a load of rubbish. Additional research may be required of the reader, if they're knowledge contradicts my teachings here in... or if you just don't trust me. I try to be as open and un-opinionated as I can, but I am but one, unedited man.

I'm not in control!

Dud

Compile it, link it and that would be pretty much the job done. However, in practice I think the linking of Dud is the cleaver bit.Hang on, what's the point of a program that does nothing? Well what about all those programs you have which do stuff you'd rather they didn't? Delete them, and for one reason or another the system puts them back... (another program checking the annoying programs integrity or just SFC) Rename (or if you can delete) annoying program and put dud in it's place with the same name... if something tries to replace it... just use the security tab to deny access to that copy of dud to everything... Woohoo! You broke it, and it will never annoy you again!

I typically use Dud to replace Outlook Express and the two versions of Doctor Watson. Sometimes I put it in place of IExplore... but I should really get around to writing something that will take IEs DDE connections and just pass them on to Firefox or whatever has become the default browser. When you don't use IE, and IE isn't the standard browser... perhaps IE has actually become infected and your system remains clean so long as IE is never run, it's highly annoying that some programs totally ignore the users prefered browser and launch their help files in IE specifically from C:\Program Files\Internet Explorer\IExplore.exe or %Programs%\Internet Explorere\IExplore.exe.

But Dud can also be a lifesaver when you get one of those annoying Trojan\Virus thingies that keeps naming it's self something random in System32... you can't delete them coz they are locked by the system whenever it's on... you can't take them out of automatic startup coz they aren't listed... nope, their a driver or a security device that WinLogon loads or something, spoofing a Card Reader or Fingerprinting device... anyway, you can usually rename them, and put an appropriately named copy of Dud in their place. Reboot and then delete them.

UnixUtils

Okay, well I don't know about you, but I don't think much of a PowerUser who isn't competent with a command line shell... It doesn't have to be BASH, or PowerShell but what ever is your preferred CLI, some of those GNU commands most Unix systems have are just so darn handy, it's not worth not having them around.

Anyway... I keep copies of these primary tools, and some custom ones (like dd etc) and stick them on quite quickly after installing Windows.Sometime I should make a standard installed... to make \etc directories and set everything up so that .bashrc and man work natively on Windows.

That's Just Mad!

I can't stand files that aren't associated with anything, and going around hunting for something that I think might just be able to read them. Of course any file is just a stream of bytes, and that means if you could just look at the numbers you might have a better idea what kind of file you are looking at, and find an appropriate reader just like that. (snaps fingers)

For this reason and purpose I use MadEdit. I've been through several Hex readers/editors over the years, but this one is a real doozie. It has syntax highlighting for most common text files (ini, php, sh script, batch files, xml, html, js, vbscript etc) it can insert or over type raw hex, it can view as hex, text or columned text... which means inserting indentation for legibility or creating ASCII art is sooooo easy.

Of course, if you know the shape of the internal structures of binary files, this also shows up QuickTime, Mpeg, Ogg Media, Automatic Streaming Files, Windows Media Video and Matrioska files which have been given a .avi extension just to get more hits on p2p searches and stuff.

Consolation

Back on the subject of Command Line, Win-R -> Cmd <Ret> is far too common, and annoying a task... How about a nice console which sits on your desktop like a widget? Console used to do just that. When active it was always on top, when not always on bottom, now it's one or the other or just normal layering... which isn't so cool, but then it can also house multiple console shells. So PowerShell, 4NT, zsh, bash all in one cool looking translucent console.

Printer? Don't want no bleeding Printer!

Here's a modern equivalent of that which I tend to find essential very quickly. PDF Creator will take anything you print to it and turn it into a PDF file. Now, I know many people find creating PDFs a pain anyway, and this free and open source solution produces better results than many commercial offerings I've seen. It works quite simply, and yet has advanced options for image compression, colour spaces etc buried in it's gubbins. It's ability to run non-interactively on a server, so that anything printed to it just drops into a network share the user may not even have access to is also great if you are managing a LAN.

If you are producing something in AutoCAD or something, and want to show your work in progress to... a client or something, and you don't want to fax it, or post it by snail mail... make a PDF, you can be pretty sure whatever they are using they will be able to read it, and it will print out to the best ability of their printer/plotter.

How do you read a PDF? Most people probably use Acrobat Reader from Adobe. But I have to say... the free version of FoxIt reader loads so much faster, and seems to support everything that Acrobat does. Mac OS X will open PDFs with Preview without any difficulty, and any system can use GSView from GhostGum Software.

If you are running Windows XP or Windows Vista, you probably have access to the "Microsoft XPS Document Writer" and the principal here is much the same. Electronic Paper. If you don't have that, you need to have a "looksee" to make sure your system is up to date, you should have the Windows Presentation Foundation installed, and the XPS printer Driver should come with that. The direct downloads that will enable you to create and read XPS files can be found here.

Back me up here will ya!

Being able to archive stuff you need kept, or don't use often is really, really important. Getting back documents, music, pictures and other keepsake files after a crash is also crucial. Zip folders in XP or ME but not 2000 (by default, you can put them back) are one thing... but we tend to use a variety of archivers for different tasks... One of the best (if not the prettiest) free tool I've come across to deal with these is ICEows. I don't associate it with Zips and Cabs because the OS already does that quite sufficiently... I usually replace the RAR capability with WinRAR later on, but as a general archive reader / writer this works so similarly to Zip/Cab Folders in Windows I think it's beautiful. Despite it's ugly icons and crabby Preferences UI.

Again, I also like Command Line archiving. Macs make DMGs, Unix uses TAr, often with some form of compression. How do you back up a directory tree on Windows, preserving the ADS, ACLs and all the rest of that Windows NTFS specific stuff? A Cab won't do it, nor a Zip. You could use Windows Backup... but it's not really designed for the occasional job. It's command line based, but easy to set up a Scheduled Task or CRON for, and streams to any stream compressor (GZip / BZip2 style) so I say use Strarc! You can find it half way down the page linked among many other incredibly well built GNU and OSS and custom made command tools by Olof Lagerkvist. (Don't tell him, but I think this guy may well be one of my secret heroes)

Batch without the box?

Okay, command line tool boxes are banned on our network at work. Don't really want kids or teachers messing around in the command line, they could do to much damage too quickly. But I love it for making major changes very quickly... I don't need them to see the output, it's usually redirected to a log anyway so how do I stop the Box popping up and getting my batch killed? Simple but very, very neat solution. Hidden Start from ntWind software. This is great for login scripts, Scheduled Tasks or Crons.

Cron WTF?

I keep talking about Cron in relation to Scheduled Tasks... well $cron is the standard Unix command for scheduling tasks and processes at specific chronological times. Simple huh. The fact is I neither like nor trust the standard Windows Task Scheduler, and disabling (or not installing in the first place) the Task Scheduler service is one of the first things I do. The fact is, I've seen too many Malwares updating their get latest ads and trojans from our site tasks in Windows Task Scheduler.

Cron is very standard, and "crontab"s (textural tables of cron tasks) are pretty standard too. They could just as easily be abused, but because there are so many variants, it makes the malicious software writers job that much harder. There is strength in diversity.

I have several favourites for different environments on windows. The Win32 build of SINC (GNUs SINC Is Not Cron tool, using standard GNUs Not Unix recursive acronyms) is very nice for managed networks and domain level control. I prefer it over GNUs Win32 cron, because it doesn't require the Cygwin posix compatibility layer.

Cygwin is a fantastic way of turning Windows into Linux... or, more like BSD TBH. But if it's Windows I'm using, I would rather have access to it in Windows native forms.

From a single user / machine point of view, nnCron is probably much more user friendly for simple tasks. The Lite version (half way down) is freeware, and I think if you needed the other functionalities, you'd be better off learning to use some of the other administration tools I list here. At the time of writing, the cost of a licence for full nnCron is £25 here in the UK.

Automation

Many tasks are done the same, or similarly over and over again. The power of command line shell work is that you the input and output is so simple, it can be processed in a script very, very quickly. An example I like to give is that if you copy a whole bunch of files from a CD to your documents folder in Windows, all those files become "Read Only" as this is the only way Windows can acknowledge that they have come from a read only medium, having no means of write protecting a Volume. (Floppies used to exhibit Write Error responses) From the windows explorer you would have to keep grouping up files in each folder, right clicking and selecting properties, then removing the "Read Only" check box, then doing the same for the folders in that folder, and the files, and the folders in those folders, and so on. If you use the NT command line (or DOS on a non-NT Windows) you can just type "Attrib -r * /s". Job done!!!Using a script of such commands can get a heck of a lot of work done in very little time at all.

Sometimes, however, there simply isn't a way of doing something in a command line program. How do you change each occurrence of "Times New Roman" text in a Word document to "Palatino Linotype" for example? Well, you might be able to convert it to some typeset file that could be modified more easily from a stream using AntiWord or such but you may well loose some other vital formatting by doing that.

Microsoft dropped the "Windows Recorder" after Windows For Workgroups 3.11 because "Nobody used it" which is a real shame, because they didn't drop the Object Packager, or COM because nobody used it, and probably nobody except me used Recorder to macro Keystrokes and mouse movements and clicks, because Windows wasn't advanced enough to be able to do anything so complex that it needed to be scripted then. These days, graphical automation scripts are all the rage, whether it's via Windows Script Host, or some other means. MacOS has always had standardised means of scripting graphical operations, and it's latest Automation is fantastic... WSH however is quite the little security hole. It makes admin very fast but it makes getting hacked very fast too. So, again, strength in diversity, I use AutoIt to perform automated graphical tasks. Many prefer AutoHotKey and I agree that there are advantages, I simply find AutoIt to be very good for rapidly creating and distributing scripts.

PowerToys

People still rave about "Command Prompt Here", and from NT Associating cmd.exe with folders and drives is easy. What is still far more useful IMHO from the original PowerToys collection is the "Target Context Menu" it was only ever released with the Windows 95 PowerToys but it is so empowering. Right click Start Menu shortcut, and select Target -> Open Container and you are at the install folder of that program... regardless of whether you were asked where to install it by the setup program or not, or even if you remember what you told it. This goes on to my systems strait off, I can't live without it. Also the Attributes Context Menu Extension (Which I can't find on Microsofts' site now, so my best advice is Google it). Or you may try LopeSofts' Freeware FileMenu Tools, but that might be overkill, I'm undecided as yet. It's so difficult to get to Hidden and System attributes of files without it.

I'm slightly disgusted to see that the old hierarchy of Win3.1 to present pages has all been redirected to the Windows Vista main page now. I know most of that stuff has been shuffled off Microsofts' support lists now, but Apple still host Service packs and updates for System 6 so it's a little frustrating if I'm trying to support someone who hasn't upgraded from WFW 3.11 or Windows NT 3.5 for some very good reason of compatibility and can't get to the downloads any more, and I think Windows 2000 and ME are still in their extended support period... I should still be able to access their stuff. Anyway, the page has gone, the complete download is still available, though you used to be able to select just the Toy you wanted. My advice is grab this download while it's still there.

Since I use SysInternals (Now Microsoft) Junction, and GNU Win32 ln from the command line I like to have paraesthesia Junction Overlay and Property page installed. This means I can see a folder isn't a unique folder, or located in the folder I find it, but an NTFS reparse point to another folder somewhere else just by the little chain overlay, and I can find out where the original is just by looking at the properties of the folder (Junction / Reparse).

I also use AlaxInfos' NTFS Link, but only to Delete Links from Explorer, the other functionalities don't seem to work so well. The thing is, that because NTFS5 supports Junctions, Reparse Points, Hard/Softlinks but Explorer doesn't, if you try to "Delete" or "Recycle" a reparse point or other junction, Explorer first moves or deletes all the files in the links destination before removing the link. AlaxInfos' NTFS Link "Delete Link" menu option will do just that. Delete the link, leaving the files within it's target in tact.

On the subject of Property pages, I also like Beeblebrox HashTab. I don't use file Hashes myself very much, but when downloading from a source which lists the last known good hash for a file, it's nice to check it downloaded correctly and that it hasn't been hacked on their site, though I think if I was the hacker, I'd hack the listed hash while I was at it. HashTab is very easy way of checking these.

Dr. Hoiby has a couple of extensions I like very much, which make the comment column of windows detailed view in Explorer actually useful. HobComment allows you to easily set comments on files and folders, without going to the "Summery" Tab in properties, which actually isn't present for all file types, and HobCommentXP puts commented folders ability back into XP... XP retained Folder Comments from ME/2000 but doesn't display them or allow them to be changed any more. After some passage of eMail correspondence he kindly made a custom version of HobComment which allows you to add, or change comments from the command line. I'm not sure if I have permission to redistribute it publicly and I know he hasn't listed it on his website yet, but eMail me if you (like me) are interested.

So, overlays and details view columns, hmm what does that remind me of. Ahh yes, Shedko Badges. Many project folders, where I keep multiple files and manually work through them, meaning some are at different levels of processing than others, I would be lost without this incredibly handy tool for assigning a token (badge) to files and folders, which shows as an Overlay, and (thanks to some correspondence from my good self, and the willing of Vadim Ivanoff [VaDeam Labs | Deviant Art] it's author) a column in detail view which you can sort files on. You may even notice that I created a theme for this one, though the one on the Shedko site is outdated. I updated the theme in response to the Design Guide, and you can grab that at Deviant Art.

More detail comment magic can be provided by FolderSize... I'm surprised actually, knowing how much ME/XPs video thumbnails make Explorer lock up the system, that FolderSize is so efficient with the CPU. It adds a background service to the system, so imagine that is caching the size of your folder contents to enable it to be prompt with it's display.

Thumbnail view is a great feature of Windows Explorer, but the number of formats it supports is rather limited. I always like to have ThumbView installed to beef up support.

If you ever have difficulty deleting files, because they are always locked by the system, then Unlocker is the solution. Well, actually there are several others, including Dr. Hoibys WhoLockMe which I used to use, but Unlocker seems to manage to get around any level of lock out, one way or another.

I think we're being watched

If you share my paranoia that someone is always listening to your conversations and watching what you type, you probably don't include your name at the top of your blog... oops. Anyway, some things are private, and some are public. The things you want to announce publicly on your website, stuff that is personal, or private (especially if it's not about you, but someone else and could be embarrassing if you handled their private data publicly) you should really encrypt before you post, eMail or host in a public area... eMail is always public remember, it's easier to spy on someones eMail than it is to tap their phone. AxCrypt is very simple, and (provided you keep your keys safe) is very secure. It's also incredibly simple to use. Oh yea, also, it's free... Which was nice.

Media! Give me media!

Okay so MediaPlayer 11 isn't bad if you're using Vista or have slipstreamed it into XP... or even just use the Update site properly, but it's not great, and the standard set of filters for DirectShow is a bit naff.

Here's the standard set I usually start with. FFDShow is about all you really need to play DivX, mp4, mkv, ogm, XviD etc etc etc files. The most optimised binary distributions can be found at FreeCodecs.com but if you don't know what extensions (SSE, SSE2, SSE3, MMX, 3DNow!, 3DNow2 etc) you CPU supports... you may as well get the general version from SourceForge.

My favorite Media Player is BSPlayer, but there are times when there is call for something that doesn't even use DirectShow, and can therefore get around the limitations of that API. Then I dig out VLC. It's ugly, and if you skin it it becomes very unwieldy (IMHO) but it's free OSS software, and it's really rather good at translating files from one type to another.

Better than that, is MediaCoder. Another OSS program (or rather collection of them) which can pretty much convert any media file (audio or video) to any other.For music (and other audio files) I like Foobar2000. It's very plain to begin with, but there are lots of nice skins at Customize.org and actually the nicest thing is that it minimises to the system tray ("notification area" as it's now called) the Kernel audio output is very clear, and goes real easy on your CPU so you can carry on doing what ever processor intensive task requires moosik, unhampered.

What about security?

Yes... well that should really happen first, and really is a matter of choice, but I frequently get asked what my personal preference is, and whether or not it's worth investing in an expensive firewall/antivirus/antispyware/antimalware etc.

Anyway, is it worth? Well, if you are installing just for your self then probably not. The freeware, or free for personal use solutions are about the best you can get...

Trouble is, a more expensive solution is also going to detract from your system performance. If you are looking for firewall & antibug software for your corporate / site gateway and proxy servers (machines which are going to do nothing except monitor what comes in and goes out of a site) then yes, pay, and pay well for your software. That is a key link to your organisation and you want it to be secure and stable. If you are a home user, and you are going to work, and play on the machine you are trying to protect, then personal / home edition software should be cheep to free IMHO.

The solutions I am currently recommending to home users are COMODO personal Firewall, Avast Anti-Virus, and AdAware & Spyware Blaster anti malware.

COMODO Antivirus may become better in time, but has a way to go yet. Bear in mind that you will probably need to register these products, even though registration is free. Most of them are supplementing your registration fee from the commercial users, who (being responsible corporate entities) are prepared to foot the bill for keeping you safe and happy to surf and shop on-line with their companies. Therefore they need to evidence just how many of their clients customers they are protecting.

Spyware Blaster is absolutely useless after you have been infected. Most solutions are, but Spyware Blaster is particularly naff, as it only really takes you back to a "last known good" configuration. However, against Malware it is much better than System Restore Points.

If you want to invest in any of these, the one to go for would be AdAware. Their professional version does perform real-time background scanning which the free version does not, and that is a very good thing.

If you really want to pay for home Anti-Virus or Internet Security, I cannot recommend Norton or McAfee. Even their "personal" solutions are way too much bloat-ware for home use, these people make excellent server protection systems IIS plugins etc but they lost touch with the home user market quite some time ago.

Security Tip:-

I use a Firefox add-on called SafeDownload. If you use this in conjunction with Sophos free command line scanner, and/or ClamAV command line version (Not the GUI ClamWin though that is an adequate AV for low internet use system) Firefox will scan anything it saves to your hard drive.

Also, the version (not yet verified by Mozilla) on the Software Blaze forums, has had a tweak added with some co-operation from myself, to allow you to ignore safe mime types when scanning. That is not to bother scanning bmps and jpegs and mp3s and gifs and such like. You should be aware that files with these extensions may not be what they claim, but by and large, as windows doesn't attempt to pass them through the execution system, only on to another program to read them, they should be pretty safe... Just don't rename them .exe and double click. ;)

Weirdness with the Web: 3 stubborn Internet problems you can fix

The text on Web pages is too small to read

Some Web designers love to torture the public by putting up Web pages with small text. Or, perhaps that's just my excuse for my aging eyes. Thankfully, Internet Explorer contains a useful setting to change Web page text on the fly.

Solution #1: Make the text larger on a single Web page

To enlarge the text on the Web page you're currently viewing

This choice works only on a page-by-page basis. The solution enlarges the text only on the page you're currently viewing. The next Web page you go to will have the text back to the original size.

If you're finding all Web pages difficult to read, you may want to change your monitor settings. Check out the next solution for more information on this.

Solution #2: Bump up your monitor display size

To increase your screen resolution

Chris Tull Chris Tull is a freelance writer and designer based out of the Dallas/Fort Worth area. He is the author of Web Designer's Guide to Adobe Photoshop (Wordware, 2006).