It’s a sad day for me.

See, I’ve been the proud owner of Soundblaster sound cards since my IBM-compatible 286 days. I’ve owned every card that Creative Labs released under the Soundblaster banner, with my current card being an XFi.

As an owner, I put up with what can best be termed as a substantial increase in “bloatware” from Creative upon driver installation of each successive card. And why not put up with it–after all, Soundblaster cards had it all: fantastic sound, enhanced aureal experience via CMSS, EAX, and Crystalizer. Not to mention up to 7.1 surround sound that included DTS and Dolby Sound features. While there were a few wanna-be’s on the market, everyone knew that if you wanted the real deal, you bought Creative.

But all of that changed with the introduction of Vista. Microsoft completely revamped the sound-driving portions of their new OS, making it possible for all of the enhancements available almost exclusively by Creative suddenly available at the software level by any sound chip developer. In layman terms: the sound card processing field was leveled: all cards and onboard chips have an even and fair chance to work their aural magic. Now, it came down to software-based rather than hardware-based rules.

And Creative dropped the proverbial ball for their longtime supporters. Across the internet, stories started pouring in about how Soundblaster card owners began experiencing massive BSOD (blue screen of death) crashes on their system. But especially owners of the latest card from Creative: the X-Fi. Myself included.

The driver issued by Creative in response to the official release of Vista was, shall we say, substandard. If anything, it revealed the Achilles Heel of Creative. They were the king at producing hardware, but incompetent at producing the software to drive that hardware once Vista changed the rules.

What’s interesting about this is that Vista didn’t spring onto the scene out-of-the-blue. There was a long, drawn-out process of beta releases and public releases, during which time Creative also put out time-limited drivers that would expire after a short period of time, at which time the end-user would have to uninstall the Creative drivers and seek out the next “beta” driver from Creative to install again.

This was true even for their most recent flagship product, the X-Fi, which, I logically conclude, had the full attention of their developers still, since it was their newest product. But even given the resources that Creative assigned to their X-Fi line, Creative could not seem to release a fully working software to interface with their hardware card. It became more and more obvious that each new driver release from Creative introduced new problems, and still more reports of BSODs in Vista. Again, I myself experienced the BSODs, which especially reared their ugly head when accessing the card in games, but would randomly appear otherwise.

To date, over a year after the official release of Windows Vista, Creative has yet to release a fully working driver for their X-Fi Soundblaster line of cards. And that’s not to mention their older cards–but I’ll address that below.

Most of the blame, Creative says, is placed at the door of Microsoft, for changing the rules so that sound is handled at a software level rather than at the hardware level within the Operating System. What this has to do with writing a driver that is stable using the fully-documented process within Vista, I have no idea; it seems more an attempt at an excuse to me–one that borders on corporate level whining. And this becomes even more evident when I look at the soundcard/soundchip market and see that others seem to be having nowhere near the problems that Soundblaster owners are having.

And apparently, that fact has not escaped the notice of other Soundblaster owners, either. They’ve been quite vocal about their unsatisfactory experiences that are eerily too similar to my own. Many of gone back to XP in order to regain stable use of their Soundblaster card, and for a time I did too.

But this, I’m afraid, is a temporary fix, because we are unavoidably being dragged forward to that inevitable day when Windows XP goes the way of Windows 2000, Windows 98, and Windows 95. It’s just a matter of time. And what then? What if Creative still has not figured out how to write a stable driver?

The Rumor Mill, of course, suspects that Creative is more interested in producing a new product (X-Fi 2, for example) so they can bump up their profit margin all over again, forcing owners to buy upwards in order to have the quality of sound that they’ve become accustomed to. The problem here is that we really are no longer bound to Creative when it comes to quality sound options, since Vista levelled that playing field. And even if we do buy the next card from Creative, there is now ample evidence available to make us pause and wonder if it will only work until the next OS is released from Microsoft, given what Creative has done so far with Vista. And personally, I think that is a very sobering point to consider.

There is another rumor now appearing on the internet, that Creative has decided to shift their focus to going software-based rather than hardware-based. Even with this, it appears that Creative has determined that trying to figure out how to make their X-fi and earlier soundcards work with Vista is a waste of time and resources. The caveat, of course, is that if they can’t write a stable, working driver for their products that compares with how their products work in XP (and since it’s done via software in Vista, and emulation has achived far greater things in other aspects of computing!) then how can we depend on them to figure out their software-based future?

Things have become even bleaker recently, as regular readers of Creative’s User Forum are well aware. Which also brings me to the motivation for this commentary.

See, even though Creative Labs has been unable to produce a stable, working driver for their soundcards (X-Fi and earlier models)–and thus has been releasing substandard “official” driver releases that lack features that are available in their XP counterparts–it appears that the Creative User Base has been able. The Creative User Forum has, over the course of the past year, seen the release of user-modded drivers that have enabled nearly everyone owning even the older Soundblaster cards to have those cards function nearly the same under Vista as they have under XP.

But rather than congratulating the user base for their ingenuity in accomplishing what they themselves have been unable to figure out, Creative Labs has now made it unmistakably clear that they will tolerate no such thing, and has removed numerous threads that have provided said drivers from users. Their claim: intellectual property rights are being violated. This after nearly a year of silence while users helped one another through driver issues, up to and including modded drivers. And it is on the heels of it coming out that Creative is shifting from hardware focus to software focus for future sound-based advances, which makes this new clamp-down all the more dubiou as to actual motive.

Response from the user base has been anger, disgust, and dismay. While most users admit that on a technical, legal level, Creative is correct in their claims about intellectual property, they are utterly shocked that Creative at this point refuses to offer them stable, working drivers (or is unable to), and that when they do so for themselves out of love for the product and the name, Creative slams the door shut. Is it possible that Creative thinks they are the only ones who can be creative?

At the center of this new controversy is a registered user named Daniel_K, a name that has quickly become synonymous with restored functionality in Soundblaster cards that have yet to see that same restoration made available by Creative themselves (and would they want that, considering that if you get the old “stuff” to work with an OS like Vista, where’s the incentive to buy a new product when it comes out on the market from Creative).

Recently, Daniel_K’s modded drivers were removed by Creative and after almost a week of silence, an official statement was released on the Creative User Forum, directed specifically to Daniel_K.

Below is the actual statement, as posted on the Creative User Forums:

We are aware that you have been assisting owners of our Creative sound cards for some time now, by providing unofficial driver packages for Vista that deliver more of the original functionality that was found in the equivalent XP packages for those sound cards. In principle we don’t have a problem with you helping users in this way, so long as they understand that any driver packages you supply are not supported by Creative. Where we do have a problem is when technology and IP owned by Creative or other companies that Creative has licensed from, are made to run on other products for which they are not intended. We took action to remove your thread because, like you, Creative and its technology partners think it is only fair to be compensated for goods and services. The difference in this case is that we own the rights to the materials that you are distributing. By enabling our technology and IP to run on sound cards for which it was not originally offered or intended, you are in effect, stealing our goods. When you solicit donations for providing packages like this, you are profiting from something that you do not own. If we choose to develop and provide host-based processing features with certain sound cards and not others, that is a business decision that only we have the right to make.

Although you say you have discontinued your practice of distributing unauthorized software packages for Creative sound cards we have seen evidence of them elsewhere along with donation requests from you. We also note in a recent post of yours on these forums, that you appear to be contemplating the release of further packages. To be clear, we are asking you to respect our legal rights in this matter and cease all further unauthorized distribution of our technology and IP. In addition we request that you observe our forum rules and respect our right to enforce those rules. If you are in any doubt as to what we would consider unacceptable then please request clarification through one of our forum moderators before posting.

Phil O’Shaughnessy
VP Corporate Communications
Creative Labs Inc.

Again, what is especially important to note is longtime posters on the forum quickly saw through the cleverly-worded but pathetically weak appeal to “IP” (Intellectual Property) as the basis for shutting down Daniel_K and others’ efforts from here on forward in making their soundcards actually work as intended, and responded with their own interpretation of events and the irony of Creative’s newfound official position. Unfortunately, newer forum users and readers will not understand that this battle between the users pleading for dependable, stable drivers and Creative (who has consistently been utterly silent about when we can expect those drivers–if ever) has been going on for well over a year.

Why is it, Soundblaster owners want to know, that Creative cannot release stable, working drivers for their products so that they will work as intended–but they have no reservations about demanding a cessation of users’ efforts (and successes!) to that end? What is the motivation for a company to want their products to continue to generate BSODs, to continue to operate in a far more limited manner than it does under Windows XP, and to simply not work dependably from owner to owner? It isn’t about Intellectual Property at all–and the above-cited letter spells it out: it’s about money. Creative’s ability to up its earnings in the future is directly proportionate to their ability to make older products crippled and increasingly unsupported–even the most recent high-ticket soundcard–the X-Fi–that continues to be promoted as the end-all-cuz-it-has-it-all soundcard–yet continues to fail miserably under the Windows Vista environment.

And so it is that I, like numerous other longtimers, have come to realize that our longterm support and advocating for Creative products has all been for nought. And like numerous others, I have decided to cease all further support for a company that acts so frivolously with its userbase in the face of a shifting market that has made Creative (not us) obsolete. Clearly, Creative is acting out of some delusional sense of grandeur that they continue to hog the spotlight in sound for PCs, and can afford to lose its hardcore userbase.

What a shame.

And what a dark day for Creative.

Timothy Kline / ENVISIONocity

The case continues to be argued that studies have not been able to connect the dots between violence in video games to real acts of violence in young people. But is that really the argument that we need to be debating? Is it really as clear-cut as that?

In other words, why are we not arguing about whether violence needs to be in a video game in the first place? Nobody would debate that violence sells video games. As a matter of fact, it drives innovation in the gaming industry: the more realistic the violence, the bloodier the kill, the more horrific the maiming, the higher the earnings from the game title—and the potential for sequels.

Some might argue that violence is present in all video games, that it is a core element. They could point to a game like Pac-Man, where the goal is to eat or be eaten… or to a game like Space Invaders, where the entire focus of the game is to see how many aliens you can blast out of the sky before they land on your planet.

But are we talking about that level of intense, graphic violence when we then compare the “violence” of yester-year’s video games to that witnessed in the barrage of today’s video game lineup, right down to the video gaming console that is commercially driven towards our youth? Is the realistically-animated headshot of a soldier in Call of Duty 4—with ensuing blood spatter on the wall—really the same level of violence as shooting down an 8×8-pixel sprite on Space Invaders? I think any such comparisons are baseless, because they are founded on the existence of violence without comparing the level or extent of violence portrayed.

Of course, violence has been a part of our history. Even before video games came onto the scene, boys played games like “cops and robbers” and “cowboys and Indians” to pass the time. But that was play-acting. Children weren’t witness to gore and violence. The goal was never to see what sort of body count you could run up, how many cars you could crash, how many women you could beat—all with the promise of high scores and subsequent bragging rights to your friends. Visible blood did not even enter into the arena in arcades and computer games until a game called Wolfenstein 3D became publicly available—and did it ever re-capture the attention of gamers everywhere. Suddenly, game immersion became the name of the game, and you could go on a killing spree like never before, watching enemy agents take it to the chest, faltering backwards with a native language cry of despair.

It created a new hunger: Demands for more realism, more formidable enemies, longer periods of sustained violence and tension. Today’s games are light-years beyond the “simple” violence of Wolfenstein 3D, but they all owe their heritage to it, nonetheless.

And, of course, it has driven profit margins as well as technological advancements. Today’s games demand premium hardware in order to fully satisfy the game’s experience for the user. In order to keep up with the video games, to satisfy that hunger for more realistic violence, gamers have shown that they are more than willing to pay out the necessary money for the gaming experience.

But the increasing violence in video games has also garnered the attention of lawmakers, organizations, and parents. Still, the foot-in-the-door is not now something that can be easily shoved back out. The gaming industry stands to lose billions of dollars if someone stands up and says “Enough!” That’s enough of an incentive for the industry to obfuscate the issue, to make it appear to be an intrusion into the very freedom that we all have under the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Does that mean that I am of the opinion that the government should be the one to decide what level of violence my children are allowed to have access? No, because that is my responsibility as the parent of my children. The government’s responsibility is to act in the best interest of society as a whole—in accordance with that society’s expressed will, not to act as parent to children that already have parents. But I can understand why government officials and politicians want to set up some sort of standard—because the current self-imposed ratings system in use by the gaming industry is clearly a conflict of interest for them. They are assigning game ratings, but where is the incentive to take full measures to ensure that the ratings system actually means something?

Of course, some retails now routinely check ID when selling games that have an “M” rating, and this is a commendable move. But they are still an exception to the norm, and do video stores that rent out video games following the same policy? It goes back to the same issue of consistency: there is none.

Parents do have a right to know that if their child goes to the store with their friends and tries to purchase a game that is rated “M” that they won’t be able to. They can’t purchase cigarettes or alcohol when they are under the age of 18 or 21, yet they are able to purchase or rent games where they can blow people up, beat people up, maim people, engage in sexual acts, etc., all of which would otherwise land them in the prison system if they were to do those things in real life?

This is a real issue, albeit a moral one… but not one that rests solely on the parents. It is a moral issue that we, as a society, must address as a whole. And to start the dialogue, we need to make it not about who has the right to decide who has access to what level of violence—but about why we need increasingly violent games in order to be entertained in the first place? When did killing, maiming, gibbing, and beating up simulated humans become a game?

It’s become too easy to buy a PC.

Now, before you respond by saying “That’s about the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard,” stop and think about it for a moment.

Today, you can buy a PC from pretty much anywhere, from specialized computer stores to Walmart to flea markets. This has been made possible by the tremendous drop in prices. You can buy an entire PC system–including monitor and printer–for under $500 now. Notebook PCs are just as competively priced today. Used PC prices range anywhere from $45 to $400 (and up, depending on system configuration).

In other words, just about anyone can afford a PC.

But then again, obtaining a driver’s license–at least here in the United States–is so easy that you don’t even need to speak good English to get one. You just have to be able to identify road signs, pass a written test, and be able to move a vehicle safely. Still, few readers here would dispute that judging by the driving they see on their way to work or school, some people should not have a driver’s license. They should never have been allowed anywhere near a vehicle, in fact!

The internet has often be called “the information superhighway.” But it has also been described as the new “Wild West.” Rules and regulations are still being worked out by governments and other powers-that-be while those same rules and regulations are being tested by internet providers wanting to take the most profitable approach to offering access, and equally tested by individuals and groups who want the newfound freedom to continue relatively unchecked.

There are, of course, longtimers who have been around during the initial growth and maturity of the world wide web. These are the people who have become very familiar with nuances and dangers associated with the “information superhighway” and learned through hard experience the importance of the Three P’s. But that still leaves thousands who are absolutely clueless when it comes to getting that new set of PC wheels and head out onto that highway, never having taken a written test, a testdrive, or obtained any sort of certification that they’re safe for everyone else already on that highway.

Those thousands of individuals operate under the belief that all you need to do is turn on the PC and get out there on the highway. Unfortunately, it doesn’t take long before warning lights are going off on the PC and the engine starts sputtering, choking, and eventually leaves them stranded.

Ideally, before that even happens, anyone buying a PC (especially first-timers!) should be given a 15-minute “class” that educates them about their new purchase. Unfortunately, the goal of the majority of computer sellers (retail and otherwise) is to make the sale and shove the customer out the door with their purchase and make room for the next sale. The rationale is that if the buyer has a problem, they can just call the manufacturer’s tech support line. But anyone that has ever needed to resort to contacting a manufacturer’s tech support knows how well that goes, and it isn’t good. So, the ideal scenario is a pipe dream, it seems–even though such an approach to computer sales would easily set down a lasting memory for the buyer, making them want to come back again, knowing that they bought from a trustworthy, dependable source.

Given the reluctance on the part of sellers to help their customers to not only become PC owners, but responsible PC owners, is it all that unreasonable to at least provide the customer with some sort of nicely-laid out brochure that covers the Three P’s of PC ownership? Not at all unreassonable, yet how often do we see even that? Oh, the salesman might mention some things, but this is motivated by the potential sale and not out of a shared concern for the consumer’s actual usage of the purchased PC.

The bottom line is that the buyer is given their PC and shown the door.

But what about the Three P’s: Protect your PC, Protect Yourself, Protect Others

Making one’s PC vehicle safe for driving on the information superhighway entails three necessary elements, so let’s spend a few moments going over them. Each of these will individually protect your pc, protect yourself, and protect others, but all three elements are required in order to do the job fully.

An Antivirus Software

If you’re going to be using your PC vehicle on the information superhighway, you’re almost certainly going to be sending and receiving emails. Having an antivirus software on your PC is an absolute necessity on today’s internet. While most PCs come with a pre-installed antivirus program (Norton Antivirus or McAfee Antivirus, usually), it will be a trial version that will expire in anywhere from 30 days to 6 months. The majority often operate under the mistaken notion that if the manufacturer installed a particular software, they did so because they wanted the best one on their system. Nothing could be further from the truth. The manufacturer’s goal is to sell systems, plain and simple. If they are including a program such as Norton or McAfee, it’s because there was a financial advantage to doing so. Anyone that reads the reviews of these products can pretty much confirm that: these are less than ideal antivirus solutions. Furthermore, the majority who start off by using the pre-installed antivirus programs will nearly always just go ahead and buy a renewal at the end of the trial version–first, because of the mistaken notion I described earlier; second, because it’s more convenient to do so than to hurt one’s head trying to figure out which other antivirus software to go with instead out of the dozens available. Personally, I recommend NOD32 for antivirus protection, but others feel just as strongly about certain others, like AVG or Kaspersky.

Regardless, even if the new PC owner does decide to go with the pre-installed antivirus software, they should, at a minimum, understand what their antivirus does and, more importantly, does NOT do for them.

Antivirus protection will help protect your PC from volatile emails meant to disrupt or corrupt your PC. They will help protect your PC from harmful files that you may inadvertently start to download, if they are viral in nature. And they will also help protect anyone else that you send emails to from catching the same “cold” your PC may get, because the truth is that even with antivirus programs, you potentially could still get infected with a virus on your PC. This is why it is so important to rely on an antivirus program that provides frequent and regular updates (one of the most popular reasons why a PC owner gets infected with a computer virus is because they didn’t understand that you have to make sure that the antivirus software is doing updates. Another reason why a PC infection occurs is that the person decides not to renew their subscription–again, not understanding that this is an important element to keeping your PC safe. And if you’re not protecting yourself, you’re not protecting anyone else, because potentially, you can be sending out that same virus with emails you send.

What your antivirus program will NOT do is protect you from what is commonly referred to as “spyware” or “malware,” which are programs you can get infected with by visiting various sites or installing software that you may otherwise need to have installed (and the spyware or malware comes as part of the “package).

Anti-Spyware / Anti-Malware Software

I can’t count the number of times that I’ve had service calls where the client was infected with spyware or malware and they insisted that it’s impossible because they always let their antivirus program do its updates and it’s always running in the background. Invariably, I stop whatever it is that I’m doing and explain to them the importance of having an anti-spyware/malware program installed.

This brings us to the second element every PC owner needs in order to keep the Three P’s intact.

I’ll admit that some PCs come with what is called an “internet security suite,” which includes an antivirus program, an antispyware/malware program, and a firewall. But as I mentioned before, and as reviewers have shown time and again: preinstalled softwares are rarely the ideal option, and are on the PC simply because there was a financial benefit to the manufacturer doing so. They’ll do what they say they can do–but only up to a point.

Making sure that the PC owner understands the difference between an antivirus software and an antispyware/malware software is vital if they are going to grasp why they need them in the first place. Knowing that will also ensure that the PC owner knows how tell if the software is working as it should, and how to respond to alerts that may come up, rather than simply clicking the window out of existence.

Basically, while the antivirus software protects you from nasty emails and viral files that you can potentially download, sending and receiving emails will not be the only thing you do while you’re out driving on the information superhighway. You’re also going to visit sites: usually sites that you choose to visit; other times, you’ll visit them unintentionally. Having a software installed and running that will monitor things as you browse the world wide web, and be able to recognize harmful code and deal with it accordingly will go a long way in helping you to keep the Three P’s.

In addition, there will be times when you install a software because you think you need it. It will pass the antivirus’ inspection in most cases–even if it contains spyware or malware–because it technically is not a virus. This does not mean that the antivirus is not doing its job, because it is. It just isn’t designed to detect spyware or malware software. So, while you don’t get a notification from your antivirus software, you will get an alert from your antispyware/antimalware program, telling you that the software you are installing contains software which potentially could be harmful to your PC or dangerous to the security of your privacy or your PC’s stability. The same can happen if you visit a site and it tries to install software onto your PC through an automated process.

So, again: it is absolutely essential that you have this second element of the Three P’s. Even so, there is one last element that often gets overlooked, yet is just as important.

A Firewall Software

Okay: you’ve got your antivirus software now, so your email sends and receives are protected. You’re protected from dangerous downloads, too.

You’ve got your antispyware/antimalware software going, so now you don’t have to worry so much about visiting a site that could potentially infect your system, or worry so much about that software that you’re installing.

But, as I indicated before: a program can pass the inspection of the antivirus software. Likewise, even though your antispyware/antimalware software passes a software or site as safe by issuing you no alerts, you still need that third element of the Three P’s: a firewall software.

A firewall software is designed to hinder a software’s ability to “phone home” as well as interrupt outsiders’ ability to gain access to your PC. The latter has become increasingly vital since more and more PC owners are subscribing to an always-on internet connection (broadband).

And like I’ve mentioned already, most manufacturers include a pre-installed firewall software (usually as part of an “internet security suite” from Norton or McAfee). Microsoft now includes a built-in firewall with Windows XP and Windows Vista, as well. Further, most broadband routers include a built-in firewall. But there is some important details you need to understand about both Microsoft’s and broadband routers’ built-in firewall.

Microsoft Windows’ built-in firewall and the firewall included in most broadband routers are designed to hinder incoming traffic. Now before we continue, I want you to know that these are completely fine in that respect, in the majority of typical home uses. But it isn’t always the incoming traffic that you need to be concerned with.

Ideally, a firewall software should also be able to monitor and control outgoing communication. This is where the built-in firewalls of Microsoft Windows and broadband routers will fall short, and where you need to acquaint yourself with the function of a firewall.

Because we live in a time where internet access is becoming more and more an everyday component of our activities, it is becoming increasingly essential that we educate ourselves about that access. When you are on the internet, you are connecting to other computers. You’ve got your antivirus software to protect you from dangerous emails and software; you’ve got your antispyware/antimalware software to protect you from malicious software (and cookies). But there will always be those occasions when these two elements do their job, yet something still slips through the cracks. There IS no perfect failsafe: only levels of protection.

So, you need a firewall because it will monitor any and all communications that arrive at your PC… and any and all communications that try to leave from your PC. This last point is going to be our focus.

First of all, there are two types of firewalls: port-based and application-based.

So, what is the difference (if any)?

Software on your PC has the potential to “phone home” or to otherwise access the internet without you ever realizing it. What it transmits could be something as harmless as information that is used to check for a program update; but it could also transmit information up to and including every keypress you make–potentially sending to a receiving computer information like credit card numbers and other personal information.

To some extent, your antispyware/antimalware software should help protect you from these sorts of software installations–but they are not a guarantee, and that’s why we’re talking about layers of protection. And that’s where the firewall comes in.

Now, in order to transmit information, a software will access one of the hundreds of doors on your PC, called a “port.” If that port is available and open to the internet, it will transmit the information. If the port isn’t available, it can’t transmit the information. It’s that simple.

A firewall controls the doors, or ports. If you think of your PC as an apartment building with locked doors, then the firewall is the security guard at the front entrance who decides if a person should enter. In the case of your PC, the security guard (firewall) also decides if a person leaving has the right to (or not). It may sound extreme, but we’re talking about the new “Wild West” of the internet, where the key is prevention.

Now, about the differences between a port-based firewall and an application-based firewall. A port-based firewall is designed to control traffic going in and out through a specific door. An application-based firewall is designed to decide who has the right to go through that door. A port-based firewall operates in a more generalized manner, so that even legitimate programs cannot access a door controlled by the firewall. This is not really an ideal solution, in my experience. That is why I always recommend application-based firewalls.

With an application-based firewall, access to the internet is decided by either you or by the firewall, based on which application is trying to access the internet. This is extremely helpful in the event that a software slips by the antispyware/antimalware process, because at some point that software will try to “phone home,” thus giving away its purpose after installation.

Some people find application-based firewalls annoying because during the initial operation and for some time thereafter, they are besieged with alerts and requests for action. What I try to tell them is that the alerts will decrease over time, but that as annoying as those alerts are, it is important to look at each alert and figure out what it is telling you so that you can make an appropriate decision. Never just click okay out of sheer annoyance! Never uninstall the firewall just because you don’t want to be bothered with it. This is as irresponsible as failing to wear a seatbelt in your vehicle!

If you’re one of those people who feel you’re fine with just the Microsoft Windows firewall and or the firewall that was included with your broadband router, that’s fine–so long as you now understand the role of a firewall in protecting your PC, yourself, and others. If that’s the case, then I know you are making an informed decision, and therefore a responsible driver on the information superhighway. And the same can be said about whatever choice you make regarding antivirus software and antispyware/antimalware software.

The key here is educating one’s self so that you can make an informed decision, a responsible decision. If you do that, you will always have in mind the Three P’s: Protect your PC, Protect yourself, and Protect others.

–Timothy Kline

My introduction to the Windows operating system came in the form of Windows 3.0. It arrived on four 3.5″ diskettes and weighed in at a whopping five megs before install, not to mention it needed around 6 to 8 megs of hard drive space post-install (depending on what you opted for installation). It even ran on 1MB of RAM (but loved you if you had 2MB of RAM (or more) so that it could run in “Enhanced” mode). It was released to the marketplace in 1990.

Seventeen years later, Windows Vista hit the marketplace (January 2007). Instead of four 3.5″ diskettes, it now comes on a 4GB DVD. It now requires 512MB of RAM and 15GB of available hard drive space–and that’s not even to mention the CPU and hardware requirements, which are astronomically beyond those needed by Windows 3.0.

So, for that 511% increase in RAM demand and approximately 2600% increase in required available hard drive space, what are we getting?

Logically, considering that we’ve seen nearly two decades in technological advances, and along with it the availability of faster programming languages, the continued growth of open source applications, the growth of the internet’s userbase, and much more–not to mention the progressive development of Windows as an operating system for PCs during those 17 years, shouldn’t we be seeing the most advanced operating system imaginable.

But is that really the case?

In reality, the Windows operating system continues to be struggling with incompatibility issues at the hardware level, incompatibility issues at the driver level, and inconsistencies at the user interface level. In reality, the Windows operating, while continuing to add eye-candy features on top of all of these ongoing issues, continues to be haunted by its own instability–the worst of which manifests itself as the “BSOD” (Blue Screen of Death).

And it’s here that I am left utterly disappointed. After 17 years, if there is anything we should no longer see, it should be the BSOD. How is it possible to put together an operating system that takes eye candy to all-new levels, includes a built-in firewall, video software, spyware software, networking features and the ability to protect users from causing (too much) damage by incorporating a feature called UAC, yet fail so miserably to protect the operating from itself? How am I to believe that Microsoft programmers can write 64-bit operating system software, server software, office suite software, PC games and XBox games (not to mention the operating system of the XBox systems), internet applications, and more–and yet, in spite of all of that, not come up with a way to prevent the operating from crashing to an enigmatic blue screen?

I can’t help but ask of Windows: How far has it come, really?

–Timothy Kline