The LangaList

The most obvious change to BT2K this week is that I’ve incorporated the JavaScript "Math Error" test into the automated portion of the series. Surprisingly, many browsers are worse at correcting rounding errors than a $5 throwaway drug-store calculator! That gives you something to think about when you’re doing things like ordering merchandise online, using online tax-preparation software, and the like.

But the larger change to BT2K this week is less visible: It’s changing the demo pages to an internal format that will allow me to "hook in" the demo to the rest of the BrowserTune site at the appropriate time.

I use FrontPage for much of that gruntwork--- the handling of style sheets, buttons, indices and so on. But I hand-code all the actual tests myself in order to avoid introducing any FrontPage weirdnesses or dependencies into the tests. So, once the tests are stable and working, I then can layer in the FrontPage stuff in a way that lets me manipulate the pages more easily, but without altering the hand-coded tests in any way.

The upshot of which is simply that BT2K is on track, and getting better every week!

(And by the way, if you missed the discussion of the browser math errors in last week’s issue, click over to here: http://www.browsertune.com/bt2kdemo/matherror.htm .)

Microsoft Gouges Deeper

OK, now I’m getting really steamed. Last December in "For-Pay ‘Betas’: Benefit Or Boondoggle?" ( http://www.informationweek.com/langaletter/121698langa.htm ), I wrote about Microsoft’s increasingly frequent practice of charging for betas under the guise of "preview" programs.

I wrote how a beta program used to involve the limited distribution of preliminary code to a relatively small group of trusted individuals or organizations. The beta testers would help find real-world bugs and report these back to the software publisher so the bugs could be corrected before the final "gamma" code was frozen and released.

But just as it's done in so many other areas, Microsoft has turned that around. They’ve scaled back their true, classic betas, and in parallel offered the beta code to all comers in something called a "preview" program.

For example, last week Microsoft announced a "Corporate Preview Program" for Windows 2000. (W2K is, of course, in the manner of the singer Prince, "The Operating System Formerly Known As NT5.") In it, you’ll get two CDs of unfinished beta code--- blank CDs cost under a buck each. You’ll get some manuals (OK, paper and printing isn’t cheap), an email newsletter (negligible cost, and it’s probably marketing propaganda anyway), and some limited tech support. What do you think Microsoft is charging?

Would you believe over $100?

I’ll tell you all the details in my InformationWeek column this week. But the upshot is that I think this is bizarre and even a little grotesque. Microsoft is one of the most profitable companies in the world, and yet they’re now charging more just to get a look at a buggy beta preview than Microsoft's competitors charge for final, shipping code!

For example, SUSE is releasing Linux 6.1 on May 3, and their full, final version will cost just $50; less than what Microsoft wants to charge you for a preview of their unfinished code. What possible justification can Microsoft have for this? I can only think of one: greed.

But that’s my opinion. Come get the rest of the details, and then tell us what’s your take: Will you or your company use the Win2K for-pay preview? Have you used other for-pay betas? Is it a reasonable way to do business, or just a way to gouge the users? Join in the free and wide-open discussion starting Wednesday May-5-99 at http://www.informationweek.com/langaletter ! 

Still More On The "Continuous Operation Bug"

I’m still getting mail about the "Continuous Operation Bug" I mentioned two weeks ago. This is a weird one in which a Windows computer will hang after precisely 49.7 days of continuous operation. The culprit is a bad timing algorithm in the Vtdapi.vxd file.

Many readers went to the Win98 Windows Update site to grab the most recent version of the Vtdapi.vxd file, but found the menu there didn’t offer them the option of downloading what’s called the "Continuous Operation Bug Fix."

If you went to the site and didn’t see the option, that’s because you don’t have the bug. The Vtdapi.vxd bug is mainly a Windows 95 issue; if you’re running a correctly-installed version of Windows 98, for example, your system won’t have the Vtdapi.vxd on it. No file, no bug.

You can use the Start/Find utility to search for Vtdapi.vxd. If you’re running Win98 and it’s not there, don’t worry.

If you’re running Win95, the correct (fixed) version of the file will have these characteristics:

Date Time Version Size File name
------------------------------------------------
6/23/98 2:44pm 4.00.951 18,570 Vtdapi.vxd

If you’re running an earlier version of the file, check out this page for details on the fix: http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/q216/6/41.asp .

Several readers sent email in the last few weeks like this one from Henry M. Willits:

Subject: Error in Link

You need to correct the following link in the Langalist:

>Please email the LangaList to a friend! (Use the super-fast form at http://www.langa.com/recommend.htm#2 !)

This doesn't lead anywhere! The "!" at the end of the address needs to be removed in order to become effective.

Thanks Henry (and all others who wrote). Actually, the page is fine; it’s that some mail readers need a space after a URL in order for them to correctly parse it. Without the space, they tack on the punctuation to the URL, rendering it meaningless.

I’ve edited the URL in the newsletter template to insert a space; the link should now work on any email reader.

And: I’d sincerely appreciate it if you each could recommend this newsletter to at least one friend. It’s fast, it’s free, it’s easy, and seeing the subscriber list grow from week to week is a wonderful thing!

Do you know one other person who might find this newsletter interesting or useful? Click on over to http://www.langa.com/recommend.htm#2 to see just how easy it is to send them a free copy, in your name.

Thanks!

Conflicting Views on Virus Checkers: Part One

Last week’s warning about the Chernobyl Virus generated a lot of mail.

Many were like this one from reader Judy Protas:

Dear Fred.

I love your e-mail.

I installed Dr.Solomon (recently sold, as you know) and found that because it sits in the background working constantly, it slowed Scan-Disk something chronic, and probably caused other glitches I wasn't even aware of (no geek I).

In today's e-mail you mentioned a stand-alone virus check that could be programmed to do a fast run-down while the system is off. Can you either explain what to look for or give me an actual product name to ask for?

Many thanks for a reply from you or staff.

Judy P.

Well, I’m glad to help, Judy, but there’s no "staff" here. It’s just me--- I’m a freelance writer, working alone.

I personally use Norton 4.0. I have no particular reason to upgrade, since this version is still fully supported by Symantec, and I’m still eligible for free weekly antivirus updates. I use Windows’ Task Scheduler to run Norton AV every day at 6AM, and it thus catches any viruses that may have crept in during the last day’s work.

This, plus the fact that I’m a fanatic about backing up my work, keeps me sufficiently safe without having to go nuts with antivirus software that's always on and active in the background.

Conflicting Views on Virus Checkers: Part Two

Reader and frequent writer Lanny Marcus (in Cali, Colombia) takes a different view.

He writes:

Dear Fred:

I respectfully disagree with you.

Yesterday, Pilar, my wife, was helping one of her girl friends research something for one of her classes. She was at the site of an organization of Peruvian exporters. Pilar does not download files.

She clicked on a Link to read an article, and suddenly was startled to find that she was downloading a file. During that process, she got this Warning Alert from Norton AntiVirus 5.0: "W97M.Nottice.D virus in file pubnov3.doc in compressed file pubnov3.zip"

I sent an e-mail to the web site, advising them they have an infection.

Also, 2 or 3 weeks ago, a friend of ours in Bogota, an M.D. who I exchange e-mail with daily, sent an e-mail to me that was infected…. My friend told me he got the virus from the Colombian Embassy in Australia.

Cordially,

Lanny Marcus; Cali, Colombia, South America

So there is something to be said for anti-virus checkers that sniff every bit and byte coming in through the wires: they prevent damage before it can happen. But the price is that you’ll have an extra process running on your PC all the time, eating some clock cycles and memory.

It’s up to you--- and Lanny’s way does offer a higher degree of protection than mine.

But the one thing you shouldn’t do is NOT use some form of virus protection. It’s a nasty world out there, full of all kinds of weird and wacko people. You owe it to yourself to install at least a minimal level of anti-virus protection on your PC.

Navigator/Communicator JavaScript Bug?

Several readers using the 4.51 version of Netscape’s browser have reported finding pages where embedded JavaScript markup code---which should be hidden---is being displayed on web pages they visit. From the code snippets they’ve sent me, it looks as through the browser is missing or misinterpreting the "comment" tags web authors use to hide their JavaScript.

For example, reader Waldo Hamilton said a CMP page showed him this:

document.write("(A HREF=\"xxx://newads.cmpnet.com/click.ng/Params.richmedia=yes&transactionID=" + seed + timenum + "&site=win&pagepos=top\")");

All that is JavaScript that’s part of CMP’s ad-banner rotation system. The code itself should not display.

With only a couple cases reported, it’s too soon to draw conclusions, but it’s interesting that all the instances, so far, have involved Navigator/Communicator 4.51. Stay tuned!

Several readers sent me the following, which appears to have originated at the "Just Joking" list at JustJoking-Subscribe@egroups.com :