New Firefox makes browser war a fair fight

If you regularly read this space, you'll notice how the Google Chrome Web browser kind of grew on me, and after my initial reservations I've come to love it. Something about its speed.

But now Firefox, with its new 3.6 version, has seen enough improvements to almost make it a fair fight.

Some of the benchmark tests comparing the two intrigued me. When you figure in that impossible stability+speed combination, reviewers are calling them almost neck and neck.

Now, we don't do that benchmark stuff around here. I don't have time to mess with all that, and I'd rather put a piece of software through its paces. I'd rather max it out, try to break it, and take note of my findings. I'm not smart enough or geeky enough to plug the whole thing to an oscilloscope or whatever it is those propellerheads do.

So, take any speed or stability tests I run with a grain of salt -- or maybe even the whole shaker. Whatever test results I get depend on what mood I'm in at the time, and what I'm trying to do with the software. But I will try to max it out.

I'm one of those computer users who runs underpowered equipment (scary to think my netbook is the most muscular computer I have) and overclocks it like crazy. And to do the things I want to do, I go for lightweight, faster programs when I can. Even my usual graphical interface -- Fluxbox -- is really little more than a plain background, taskbar, and menus that I write myself from text files. That's why I was so eager to get my Chrome on, because of its simple and fast interface.

Being the experimenter that I am, after reading some of the reports I had to download Firefox 3.6. I've always liked the 'fox, used it even in its beta days when it was called Firebird (or was it Phoenix?), and kept going back to it after trying other browsers. But I knew 3.6 would really have to show me something to dislodge Chrome from the front line.

But I'm pleasantly surprised. I'm not sure what the developer did, but it's a whole lot quicker than Firefox used to be. It's not quite in the Chrome league, but this new version might be as fast as Opera.

From what I've noticed, Web pages don't seem to get lost in that nether world that's probably populated by everyone's stray socks.

Lifehacker recently ran some tests of some of the favorite browsers available, with several versions of Chrome, Firefox, and Opera, and Safari. Sorry, Internet Explorer wasn't in these tests, which takes away a lot of comic relief. That would have been like bringing a duck to a cockfight.

Here's the stuff according to Lifehacker, with my comments:

• Boot-up and warm loading; Winner: Opera - No surprises; Opera always was a fast loader.

• Tab Loading; Winner: Chrome Stable - I use version 4.0.249.30 for Linux, which is in beta but built from the stable version. And there's no dispute there; it's the fastest "name" browser I've seen in a while.

• JavaScript; Winner: Opera 10.5 Pre-Alpha.

• DOM/CSS; Winner: Chrome Developmental version.

• Memory use, no extensions; Winner: Firefox 3.6 - This is a surprise, and certainly worth my attention.

• Memory use with extensions; Winner: Firefox 3.6 - An even bigger surprise here. Firefox has always been fairly quick until I start loading in my extensions. Then my browsing experience was like watching paint dry. If this test holds up in real life, then Firefox just made up for a lot of lost ground in the browser battle.

• Overall winners, in order: Google Chrome Developmental, Google Chrome Stable, Firefox 3.6, Firefox 3.5.4: Opera 10.5 Pre-Alpha, Opera 10.01, Safari 4.0.4.

Will this new Firefox become my prime browser?

It's hard to say. I've always liked how you could add extensions to Firefox, but Chrome is starting to head in that modular direction too. And I like the independent tabs in Chrome; if one Web page gets stuck you only need to close that tab rather than shut down the whole browser. In Chrome I haven't run into the memory problems I used to encounter with Firefox. There's a lot to be said for both browsers.

Besides, it's still too early in my test flight for me to render a decision. I haven't broken Firefox yet. Or Chrome. Ask me then.

But if speed and memory use are your needs, it looks like this may finally be a fair fight.

###

Got my Chrome on -- finally!

After a whole bunch of testing, tweaking, and head-banging, Google Chrome is now working on my Linux box.

At issue was an nss file; I'm not real sure what it does, but it makes Chrome work. That's all I need to know.

I couldn't find it on any of my Vector Linux repositories, so I had to do some serious Web searching to dig it up. But it's there, on a web site called slackfind.net -- of course, it is now bookmarked in my system.

Here's the file:

Keep in mind, this is for a Slackware version of Linux, specifically Vector Linux, which is the one I use. It's in .tgz format, for me a breeze to install.

And Chrome is as fast as I knew it would be.

Firefox? What's Firefox?

###

Chrome becomes headache on Linux box

I'll admit it. I had my early misgivings about the Google Chrome browser when it was first coming out. Like, what's Google doing in the software business?

But after using Chrome a few times on Windows systems, it sort of grew on me. It's one fast browser, maybe even faster than Opera. It's less likely to blow up in memory like Firefox. I have a Portable Apps version that I use on borrowed Windows machines, though it doesn't seem to save my bookmarks.

On my Linux box, I'm always experimenting with browsers. I have Firefox, Seamonkey (which is built off the old Mozilla code), Dillo, Lynx, and Opera available to browse the Web, and I use them all. For the past few months Opera has been my go-to, and even that feels poky next to Chrome.

So I put myself on the Chrome mailing list, waiting for the Linux version to come out. A few weeks ago, the first version for MacIntosh and Linux was released, with all the warts.

Now, understand, this version is in beta. Which means it may or may not work. That's what happens when you go for such bleeding-edge software. You're volunteering your services as a crash-test dummy.

So far, only binaries of Chrome seem to be available in Linux; I haven't seen any source-code bundles just yet. I use Vector Linux, which runs with .tlz and .tgz binary packages, but I like to compile my programs from source. Best I was able to do was to download the .rpm binary (which Red Hat and Fedora use), and convert it over to .tgz. Here's what I did, from the root shell:

root:# cd /home/eric
root:# rpm2tgz google-chrome-beta_current_i386.rpm

From there, I was able to install it directly into my system. I was ready to go. I had my seatbelt buckled and my Tony Stewart racing gear on, 'cause this was going to be one fast browser.

A problem, though. I could only go so far; the sandbox (a security tool) wasn't configured right. My command shell told me what to do, so after a few days of deliberation I went ahead with the fix. Here's how, again from a root shell:

root:# su /opt/google/chrome
root:# chown root chrome-sandbox
root:# chmod 4755 chrome-sandbox

Then fired Chrome up from the command shell -- success, for a minute.

As it stands now, I can work Chrome all day, as long as I don't use it to go online. That's when it quits.

Seriously. Here's what I get in the command shell:

eric:$ google-chrome
[7241:7253:703254262:ERROR:/usr/local/google/home/chrome-eng/b/slave/chrome-official-linux/build/src/base/nss_init.cc(89)] Error initializing NSS with a persistent database (sql:/home/eric/.pki/nssdb): NSS error code -8174 Assertion failure: lock != NULL, at ../../../../pr/src/pthreads/ptsynch.c:205 Aborted

In non-technical language, that means it crapped out. Back to the drawing board.

Might need to download the next version, maybe attack one of the nightly builds. And if anyone has any ideas of their own, I'm willing to try them. But despite my early misgivings I see Chrome in my future, and I'm not talking about a chrome dome here.

I'm gonna keep trying, because I'm stubborn and enjoy fooling with software when it's in beta. Face it. I make a good crash test dummy.

###

(You tell me: How about the rest of y'all Linux users? Have you had any better luck than me? Use the comments section below.)

Single-tasking rules with new text editors

Maybe it's a longing for a simpler time, or the realization that your computer is loaded with distractions, but lately I've been seeing lot of text-editing programs designed to narrow your focus.

Multitasking is out now. Welcome to the wonderful world of single-tasking.  

I've been reading about the Darkroom program for Windows, and Writeroom for the Mac. Then there's WriteMonkey and PyRoom, two other programs that do absolutely nothing but give you a background to type your words on. Almost nothing to play with on any of these programs.

The big question here is, what fun is that? It's not like you can adjust your margins, change fonts, or add fancy graphics here. Your screen looks absolutely barren; even the desktop icons and Freecell game are blanked out.

I use PyRoom (which is pictured here), a text tool that shows you nothing but a green box on a black screen. My text shows up in green in that box. No formatting, no toolbars, no dancing paper clips -- just the text in a box.

When I wrote for the Fontana Herald-News, we used the old Harris typesetting system, which was ancient even in the late 1980s. PyRoom reminds me of the terminal I typed on back then. The only real difference was that there was a string of commands at the top of the screen, which were for setting the type and meant nothing to me, the writer. I was limited to eight characters for the file name (which we called a "slug" back then.

I was quite productive on these old-school screens because, well, there was nothing else to do but write. I'm easily distracted, so it's probably a good thing I don't have an Internet connection at home or I'd get nothing done.

Much as I've tried to multitask, I always do my better work when I'm going the opposite direction. That means when I write, I write. When I design the page, I design the page. Those two disciplines used to be -- and still should be -- kept separate. That's why I do most of my writing on a plain-vanilla text editor instead of something like OpenOffice or Microsoft Word.

With PyRoom you can set the background to a variety of color schemes, but I stick with the default green-on-black. And I understand with WriteMonkey you can even set the sound to give you the clacking of a typewriter; how cool is that? Other than that, your commands are pretty minimal with these programs. Here's the help file with PyRoom:

---------
Control-H: Show help in a new buffer
Control-I: Show buffer information
Control-P: Shows Preferences dialog
Control-N: Create a new buffer
Control-O: Open a file in a new buffer
Control-Q: Quit
Control-S: Save current buffer
Control-Shift-S: Save current buffer as
Control-W: Close buffer and exit if it was the last buffer
Control-Y: Redo last typing
Control-Z: Undo last typing
Control-Page Up: Switch to previous buffer
Control-Page Down: Switch to next buffer
---------

While Darkroom is a Windows program and Writeroom is ported to the MacIntosh, PyRoom has no real preference. It's written in the Python programming language, so it should work with all operating systems. It's also free. 

I wasn't sure I'd like using such a stark text editor, but the more I use it the more I like it. And I get a lot more done when I'm using it.

###

Chrome browser finally available for Linux

A beta of the Google Chrome web browser is now available for Linux.

About time!

Downloading now ... as I write this. Expect more after I install it.

Available in .deb (Debian) and .rpm (Red Hat/Fedora) binaries.

Try it with me, y'all penguinistas!

Computer issues being resolved

I can say it now: The laptop is back among the living.

Most of my software is back up. I've knocked off most of my to-do list. I'm writing this column on it, and soon I will upload it and download email and news. I'm extremely pleased.

One of the things I noticed is that, with the new configuration, it's handling power better. I haven't checked to see if I'm getting any better battery life, as I tend to forget about things like time when I'm online. Gee, I could fly a passenger jet ...

But I have noticed that it's running much cooler when it's plugged in to the A/C adaptor. Seriously. It's not like I took its temperature (I'm not sure where to stick the thermometer), but I can tell the difference. I take that to mean the CPU isn't working as hard, a good thing.

From my master list, I still need to locate a program that will put the computer into sleep mode when I close the lid. My temporary operating system had that, so this shouldn't be difficult to find or install. From there, most of the work is either convenience or cosmetic -- like rebuilding my menus so they'd be a little more intuituve.

I still want to find an uncorrupted version of the Windows system file I blew out (hal.dll), but there's no rush there.

For the geekus extremis among us, here's a printout of some of the basics. If your eyes glaze over when someone mentions "CPU," feel free to skip over this part:

-Computer- Processor : Intel(R) Atom(TM) CPU N270 @ 1.60GHz Memory : 1022MB (267MB used) Operating System : Unknown distribution Date/Time : Tue 27 Oct 2009 01:31:22 PM GMT+5 -Display- Resolution : 1024x600 pixels OpenGL Renderer : Unknown X11 Vendor : The X.Org Foundation -Version- Kernel : Linux 2.6.29.3 (i686) Compiled : #1 Tue May 19 23:43:56 GMT-8 2009 C Library : GNU C Library version 2.9 (stable) -Current Session- Computer Name : epulsifer Desktop Environment : Unknown (Window Manager: Fluxbox) -Misc- Uptime : 17 hours, 5 minutes Load Average : 0.23, 0.15, 0.15

This "uptime" is interesting. Keep in mind, this is a laptop and I don't have that sleep-mode switch fixed, so it's been running, powered and plugged in, with the lid closed.

Just for yuks, I checked to see how long my desktop (which also runs on Linux) unit has been booted up without a restart:

7d 17:46

OK. I rebooted that computer a week ago. I usually only shut the desktop down when I'm experimenting with another computer (not enough power cords to go around), replacing a part, or moving the unit.

Just try doing that with Windows.

###

(Pictured is a screenshot from the laptop. OK, you may not recognize a lot of this stuff if you're a Windows user. The interface -- Fluxbox -- is pretty minimal, but it stays out of my way.)

Resurrecting laptop took plain & fancy fixes

OK. I think I'm back up and running.

Was out of the loop for a few days; my main access to the Internet went south until I was able to fix it.

This laptop is my mobile workhorse. Although I do much of my writing on the home computer, it's strictly a standalone unit that doesn't conect to the web. To upload and download, I use my Acer netbook for all the dirty work.

The Acer was victimized by my tendency to experiment. I'm not even sure what I did. I jiggled when I should have joggled, and corrupted a couple of system files. Now, that computer is driven by Windows XP, which doesn't lend itself well to evil experiments. Anyway, when I boot up into Windows, an error message pops up letting me know just what I'd b0rked, and won't let me go any farther than that. A dead computer.

Thanks to some other experiments I'd run, the netbook wasn't dead in the water for very long. I have a few quick-and-dirty solutions that brought it back to the land of the living, but I'm not done yet. Working on a "final solution," but the duct tape and spit will work for now.

From quick-and-dirty land:

I have a Linux system installed on a 1-gigabyte thumb drive, and I set up the laptop's BIOS to look there first before booting anything else up (instructions are on the screen). I'm using a variant of Puppy Linux, which is great because it runs in memory. Once I'm booted up, I can pull the thumb drive and work without that thing hanging out of the computer. It's probably an OCD thing.

If you're a Linux user, you can set up any version to run with a program called Unetbootin. It's very cool. You grab the .iso image file of whatever Linux version from the Internet, install it to the thumb drive via Unetbootin, fire up the computer with the thumb drive installed, and you're running Linux. You'll be able to access the files on your hard drive as before. The only caveat is that, unless your version of Linux is designed to run completely in memory (such as Puppy Linux), you won't be able to remove the thumb drive without screwing things up.

On that USB drive, I have all the goodies I need -- wireless fixins, a Web browser, text editor and word processor, and a program to play mp3s while I work. I'm all set there, at least for now. And I have the same system installed on a smaller, 256-megabyte USB drive that stays in my cell phone case, so I have a backup.

That was my temporary fix, and it served me well. But it wasn't the final solution. The good news is that over the weekend I got much closer to something more permanent. A newer, more expandable version of Puppy Linux is now installed on my hard drive, and I can boot directly into it without using the thumb drive. Much cleaner, much more permanent.

One of the limitations of Puppy Linux is that its ability to install newer software is a little squirrelly. The developer, a nice Australian guy named Barry Kauler, built the system for speed and a small footprint, and many of the add-in programs had to be adapted for that system. But, through the "woof" project, one is able to import software from Ubuntu repositories or the Slackware-based .tgz format.

I know this means nothing to non-geeky types, but here's the upshot: Newer, better software. With the old Puppy Linux, I'm limited to version 2 of Firefox; now I'm able to grab the newer -- and in this case better -- version 3.5.

OK. Almost there. But something's still missing:

I'm a news junkie, and a big part of my blogging is my ability to capture all the news I need. Plus, I want something that would give me some flexibility. I want to be able to move all this news from my laptop to the desktop at home.

In short, I want a portable RSS reader that I can use online or offline.

For those who don't know about such things, an RSS reader is the world's greatest invention for news junkies such as myself. You subscribe to your feeds, download the news you want, and read it at your leisure. Most news websites and blogs -- including this one and The Column, Reloaded (which I highly recommend) -- allow you to subscribe; but some will just give the partial feed, a paragraph or two, while others give the full text and graphics.

My own feeds include a handful of news outlets -- Yahoo! News, CNN, Newsweek, the BBC, ESPN. Plus many blogs. I have tons of political blogs in my feeds -- Daily Kos and the Huffington Post on the left, The Heritage Foundation on the right, and the libertarian Cato Institute. Although my politics are pretty well defined, I like to see what all sides have to say.

I never bothered counting the number of news feeds I have, but I have more than 1,00 news items to sort through every day. Some, obviously, are good for little more than a glance at the headline. Others I'll read, mark, prioritize, quote from, and link to in my blogs. And still others I'll forward to friends.

If you're a Gmail user, you have access to Google Reader, which fits most of the bill. But I wanted my news to be more portable than that. Google Reader does have offline capabilities, but that's still experimental.

I considered using a second, 8-gigabyte thumb drive that I use as my mobile storage disk. That's where I keep my work files, plus my Portable Apps suite.

I love Portable Apps. That's where I have a handful of to-go programs. There's Firefox, Abiword, Thunderbird, a few games, and Open Office, all on a flash drive that I can plug into anyone's computer, do my work, and leave no trace. I wrote about Portable Apps in my other blog, and it's one handy tool. The developers have some great programs available, but no RSS reader. And I'm ticked. In a pinch Thunderbird will work, but it's a poor option at best. And, these Portable Apps programs are Windows-based, meaning I need to use an emulator -- such as WINE -- to run them. Useful as WINE is, that's one layer of software I don't want to mess with for something as crucial as gathering the news.

While running my temporary system from the thumb drive, I experimented with several Linux-based RSS readers, and none were satisfactory. But with the freshly-installed Puppy Linux I tried the multi-platform, Java-based RSS Owl, and so far the interface works. While uploading this blog, I will test my installation to see if it actually downloads the news. I hope so. RSS Owl was my go-to news reader on Windows, so there won't be any real learning curve.

Fast update: It's working! I'm excited!

OK. What's still unresolved is my ability to share my RSS news with my desktop computer. The only real solution I see -- and this is theoretical -- is to score a router and network the two computers. But that's another project I'll study on later. My plate is already piled so high it's ready to tip over.

Here's my to-do list:

- Laptop lid switch - fix. (One problem with my system right now is that it doesn't go into sleep mode when I shut the lid. This means I either leave it powered up, or shut the whole thing down.
- Firefox 3.5 (Will download this in a few days.)
- Thunderbird, with calendar (My favorite mail reader, and there's a calendar add-on that, well, keeps me organized. Shoot, keeping myself organized is a losing battle most of the time, but let's not go there.)
- A couple of games (I'm not real big on that, but it's not all work and no play, and I do like a lightweight game or two every once in a while.)
- Gantt (This is a program that I use for planning, when time is important and there are definite steps to be taken. The one I use on my desktop is a Java-based program, and it's a simple download and install.)
- RSS reader!! (As I mentioned, this is being addressed.)
- qt3 (This is a series of library files that are needed to run Scribus, an open-source page layout program.)

That's the more important stuff. The rest of the list is something I can attack later:

- GIMP (This is an open-source graphics and photo-manipulation program, on a par with PhotoShop.)
- Audacity (This is a simple sound-editing program. I've used the laptop to record band rehearsals. Also need to come up with something better than the lousy condenser microphone that came with the laptop, but that's not an immediate need.)
- Open Office (I do have that, via Portable Apps, on my thumb drive. In truth, I don't use it all that much.)
- TweetDeck (This helps me organize my Twitter account, and it's quite useful. Twitter, by the way, is great for keeping up with the absolute latest news, but it's also the biggest time-waster since the Internet was invented.)

Enough already!

Scareware a big business, but fake virus 'protection' can be removed

Viruses and spyware are a real concern when you spend any time on the Internet, and some people are feeding on your fears for big bucks.

But while there are quite a few legitimate anti-virus programs out there, there are more that not only do not get rid of your viruses and malware, but install more of the same on your hard drive.

Symantec, which owns Norton, says more than 40 million people have fallen victim to the "scareware" scam in the past 12 months. According to the BBC, "online criminals make millions of pounds by convincing computer users to download fake anti-virus software." Which translates into an awful lot of dollars, not to mentioned the number of computers that are trashed by this cottage industry.

Over my years of surfing on the Internet, I've seen plenty of this. An ad shows up on a Web page I'm browsing, offering to scan my hard drive for free. Or flashing a message that would make even the most savvy Web surfer sweat -- that viruses have been detected.

The idea is that you click on the ad and it will scan your disk, or install a virus-protection device. That's what you think, anyway.

In reality, the scan or program is useless at best. At best.

At worst, the program or scan will install its own spyware, or its own virus, and really make hash of your hard drive -- and maybe even bill your credit card in the bargain.

Welcome to the rogue security software. They either are disguised viruses, trojans or are nothing but a sales pitch, trying to push another product to the user.

Call it scareware, because it's designed to frighten you into buying its product or download its own viruses, Trojan horses, or spyware.

Most of my Internet work is with this netbook, using Windows. But even while using Linux I've even seen these ads come up. I'm talking about the ads saying that viruses have been detected on my computer.

Which told me right away the claim was a bunch of horsesqueeze. For several reasons, Linux is not prone to viruses or spyware. Nor is MacIntosh, really.

OK. Time to check your computer. See what kind of virus protection you have. If it's from this list, you're in a bunch of trouble:

Cyber Security
Alpha Antivirus
Braviax
Windows Police Pro
Antivirus Pro 2010
PC Antispyware 2010
FraudTool.MalwareProtector.d
Winshield2009.com
Green AV
Windows Protection Suite
Total Security 2009
Windows System Suite
Antivirus BEST
System Security
Personal Antivirus
System Security 2009
Malware Doctor
Antivirus System Pro
WinPC Defender
Anti-Virus-1
Spyware Guard 2008
System Guard 2009
Antivirus 2009
Antivirus 2010
Antivirus Pro 2009
Antivirus 360
MS Antispyware 2009

These are rogue programs, according to ghacks. And if you have one of these, you'd better get rid of it awful fast. You probably clicked on something, downloaded what you thought was virus protection, and you may have noticed your computer running like crap.

So what do you do?

There's an article in ghacks which mentions "Remove Fake Antivirus," a portable software program for the Windows operating system that has been designed to uninstall 27 different rogue antivirus software programs from the computer system. You can download Remove Fake Antivirus here, and it's free.

I downloaded and ran it, though for me the on-the-workbench test was inconclusive. This is probably because I know the likelihood of me actually downloading and installing some of this scareware is really slim. The dialogue box showed, though, that it was removing each of these antivirus programs. My assumption was that this is the "default" dialog box. After running the program, you will be asked to reboot.

In truth, I'm a little chary of installing a virus-protection program from a non-company website (this is from a blog, how sketchy is that?) but sites like Download Squad (which gave it really lukewarm reviews), Softpedia, TechForums, and CNet (which rated it two-and-a-half stars out of five; not that great, and none of the readers reviewed it) carry links and product descriptions. Plus, I've never found reason to fault the information I get from ghacks.

A caveat: Here's one of the Download Squad reviews:

Well, I ran it, and it killed my main windows service and forced a restart. When the PC came back up, I had no internet connection. Warnings should be posted.

With that in mind, I checked things out when I rebooted. The Windows security service flashed a warning saying I had no virus protection, but I see ClamWin had loaded itself in the system, per normal. A glitch, perhaps? The good news was that my wireless Internet ran just fine. But be careful!

Menawhile, there are several good virus-removal programs out there. Some -- Norton and McAfee -- are the kind you pay for, while others -- AVG, ClamWin, and Avast! -- are free. The for-pay ones are probably a bit better than the free ones, but any of these are good for the computer and your peace of mind. That is, if you update them every so often -- there's always some idiot thinking that if he builds a better virus, the world will beat a path to his door. These viruses seem to be coming down the pike faster and faster. A virus protection program is only as good as its updates, and it's also useless if you don't run it regularly.

For spyware removal programs, only two are worth downloading -- AdAware by Lavasoft, and Spybot Search And Destroy. And neither one is perfect. But, unlike antivirus programs, you can have both installed and running on your computer. I highly recommend you run both, one after the other, as part of your regular security regimen. What spyware program one doesn't catch, the other one probably will.

Mossberg: Windows 7 looks good except ...

Y'all Windows junkies can't wait for Version 7? According to Walter Mossberg of the Wall Street Journal, Windows 7 beats the pants off Vista (which isn't difficult) and even seems a lot sturdier than XP. (It remains to be seen how it stands up against Windows 98SE, the American classic).

Mossberg says everything's copacetic about Windows 7 except ... except ... the upgrade process. Might be better to buy a whole new computer?

Review: Are Netbooks hip or hype?

I've joined the laptop crowd, kinda sorta.

Recently I acquired an Acer Aspire One, one of the new breed of mini-laptops that they in the industry call "netbooks." A pretty handy little device; about the size of a hardback book.

It's not a full laptop, and if you put it up against one of the larger, faster portables you'll definitely see a difference. But these smaller units have caught on, sold like crazy,  and created their own category: netbooks.

A bit of history on these netbooks: The idea came about a couple of years ago with the One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) project. This effort was to design a mini-computer rugged enough to tote everywhere, with wireless connectivity, no hard drive, and cheap enough to be distributed among third-world children. Or something like that, anyway. The designers hoped they could make a tough little $100 laptop. Of course this concept didn't work out in the real world as it did on paper, but the Acer -- like the Asus Eee, is a direct descendant of the OLPC project.

The last laptop I'd used was an old Toshiba Satellite, a 486 system running Windows 95. I can't remember how much RAM it had, but it certainly not enough to handle today's software. And for years I used a roll-your-own laptop, which was little more than a Sony Clie handheld (with a Palm OS) hooked up to a foldout keyboard. This was the ultimate in portability -- I could stow the two pieces in my coat pocket -- but I was limited in what kind of files I could move. This setup didn't have Internet access, though I could connect up by piggybacking through my desktop rig. This was great for what I really needed to do, keeping myself organized (always a monumental task) and editing text files away from home.

For a long time I had my eye on a cheap (read: thrown-away) laptop, but that wasn't forthcoming. Instead, I opted for the Acer, which goes for about half the price of most laptops, has wireless connectivity, allows me to work on the go, and is small enough to stow in my backpack. At a little less than two-and-a-half pounds, we're not talking about any significant load at all, and I keep it in a zippered document bag that fits it nicely.

It's lightweight under the hood, too. My unit has 1 gigabyte of RAM, an Intel Atom processor with 1596 mHz CPU speed, and a 160-gig solid-state hard drive. This last part is cool, as many Netbooks lack a hard drive, leaving you to save files to a USB thumb drive).

For connections it has three USB 2.0 ports, an Ethernet port, a six-in-one memory card reader, and a slot for an additional storage card. Add some nearly-useless stereo speakers and a minimal built-in Webcam, and that's the package. None of it is truly outstanding, but that's where you decide exactly what your needs are before buying the Aspire -- or if you're half smart, any other computer.

Personal note: My desktop/workhorse is quite old (256MB RAM, 1.3 GHZ, 80G hard drive, running Linux), so the minimal hardware on the Aspire is not as big an issue with me. About the most memory-intensive thing I do is editing and mixing sound files, and I try to stick with software that's as bloat-free as possible. Plus, I'm not above a little vest-pocket engineering. I'm saving most of my files on a thumb drive anyway so I can work with them on the desktop (Linux) computer, and you can pretty much do anything with a USB drive that you can do with a CD-ROM -- including boot the computer directly from it.


Because it's a subminiature, it will take a lot of coordination and patience to use the Aspire. The screen is small -- a teeny 8.5 inches on the model I have, though some are 10 inches or larger. This one ... well, I find myself maximizing all my windows to fill the screen just so I can see them. The LCD screen is quite clear, though, so reading it is not a problem. On many Web sites, memorize where your PgUp and PgDown buttons are. You'll be using them a lot.

The keyboard is likewise small, in fact the same size as the Belkin foldout keyboard I used with the handheld. Although I'm good with a keyboard, I end up making more typos with this one because of the smaller keys and because I basically have bricks for hands. I don't recommend using this keyboard for long stretches.

The touchpad is a little squirrelly, too, mostly because I've never used one before. Like on a lot of laptops it's below the space bar, in the middle. In fact, right about where my thumb thinks the space bar should be. My unit did come with a half-sized USB optical mouse, so that's an option if that touchpad drives you buggy.

No real problems with the graphics, though sound leaves a lot to be desired. Even using headphones, playing music through it doesn't sound as good as it does from my desktop or mp3 player. I tried recording with the built-in mic, and immediately decided it's pretty bad.

Now that I've eviscerated the Aspire ...

I find it's best at going on line just about anywhere. The other day, bicycling home from work, I stopped off at a college campus, plunked my butt down on a bench, dragged out the Aspire, found a wireless signal, and went to work. Email. Downloaded a few songs. Checked a few Web sites (if you must know, some sites with info on how to put Linux on the Aspire!). Edited a column or two. Got quite a bit done. The only real on-the-road drawback is that battery life is limited to between two and three hours, so if there's some heavy work ahead you might want to pack the two-piece A/C adaptor.

I'm also keeping my most important files -- particularly my mp3 collection (at more than 1,800 songs and growing) -- on this unit's hard drive as a backup. That in itself is huge.

I'll grant you, this unit is nowhere near as powerful as the newer laptops or desktops you can get. Not even close. It clearly won't run under Vista, and Microsoft has been keeping XP around mostly for these Netbooks. That in itself doesn't worry me; Vista is an abortion anyway.

What was almost a deal-breaker for me is that most netbooks -- including the Aspire One -- have no CD-ROM drive. And the keyboard is much smaller than even your average laptop's. But the Acer isn't really designed to be someone's main unit, and even the limited specs make it a whole lot faster than my ancient desktop.

Another almost-deal-breaker for me is that it's very difficult to install or run a different operating system on this rig. Some versions of the Acer come with Linux, but this one is loaded with Windows XP Home Edition (Service Pack 3) -- ironically, Linux is my preference. Theoretically, I can install Linux via dual-boot, using the thumb drive in lieu of a CD-ROM to load the system. I'm still toying with it, and this will become fodder for a future posting.

Here's some bottom line stuff:

Don't buy the Aspire One because it's "cute," although I'll admit the little bugger IS cute. Don't get it if it's the only computer you have, unless you will only use it to go on line. Don't buy one expecting the latest gee-whiz bleeding-edge software. Don't get it if you plan to use the keyboard a lot, or have problems with smaller keyboards, or need a large display. Don't get it if you want Vista or whatever operating system Microsoft develops to replace that abortion. Don't get it if you can't leave stuff alone. Don't get it if you already have a perfectly good laptop, unless you're looking for a spare.

Get it, though, if you need to go ultraportable, if you want a mini-laptop that can go with you everywhere, or if you're looking for a cheaper option for a laptop.

==========

[You tell me! What's your experience with netbooks? Do you have one? Do you love it or hate it? Use the comments section for your input.]

Google promises privacy fixes in Chrome

Google is taking steps to mask the identities of those who use the new Chrome browser, the Washington Post reported.

According to Jane Horvath of Google, the company -- which dominates the Internet search world (when people do a Web search they're more likely to say they're "googling" it, making the company name into a verb) -- will anonymize IP addresses and cookies in the interest of privacy.

The privacy issue has been a major one on the Internet, and intensified as Google released the browser last week.

"My main concern is the ability to collect users' Web addresses, and
therefore your complete surfing on the Web could be tracked," Germany's
data protection commissioner, Peter Schaar, said of Chrome. "The Web
is, in fact, a second life. A virtual mirror of one's real life, with
information about one's interests, activities, perhaps sexual
orientation."


All of which is true. If you want to stay totally private, forget the Internet. The question, though, is whether the browser will make that much difference.

=========

Meanwhile, columnist Gary Cutlack of Tech Digest suggested there's little difference between Google Chrome and the Firefox browser -- some of the Chrome features that turned his head were already in Firefox, except he had to hunt for them.

"All Google's effort has done is left me appreciating Firefox even
more, and extra-extra confused about why Google has gone to so much
effort to put out a product so incredibly similar to its rivals," he wrote. "So
thanks very much, Google. You've made me bring my browsing habits bang
up to date. I'll remember to click on a few of your adverts some time
as a thank you."

OK. Bottom line here. Am I going to try Chrome when the Linux version comes out? Of course. If for no other reason than to satisfy my own curiosity, I must give it a shot.

Am I going to like Chrome? Hard to tell, though probably not. For me, the selling point will be its speed. Firefox occasionally blows up real big in memory, especially when I have a lot of browser tabs open. That, and whether the privacy issues and license agreement are ironed out.

License agreement for Chrome has ugly aspects

With all the publicity of Google's new Chrome browser, there are a few issues that are turning up.

There seems to be a security vulnerability with it, as outlined in Infoworld. It can be serious especially if you're not all that computer savvy.

"... serious vulnerability could result in Chrome users downloading malicious code. The problem is due, in part, to the fact that Google uses an older version of WebKit, the open-source browser technology also used in Apple's Safari browser, that includes the vulnerability."

OK. Chrome is in beta, meaning it's still being fixed. Allegedly.

But there's something even more serious. The End User License Agreement (EULA), which is all that fine print you usually ignore when you download something, has some really ugly problems.

An example is with the rights to anything you pass through that browser: "By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a
perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive
license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly
perform, publicly display and distribute any content which you submit,
post or display on or through, the services."

Also, Google has the right to update Chrome automatically, whether you want it done or not. Shades of America Online, and more recently Windows.

From the EULA: "You agree to receive such updates (and permit Google to deliver these to you) as part of your use of the services."

Ugh.

If this EULA is a problem with you, then you just may want to stick with Firefox. Or Opera. Or Konqueror. Or Lynx. Maybe even (I must be kidding here) Internet Explorer.

I'll still check it out when it's available in Linux, but the EULA makes me nervous.

(My sources here: Slashdot and CNet.

(There probably will be more to come on this matter.)

Google goes Chrome

I'm watching as the new kid on the browser front, Google Chrome, makes its first real flight in the wild. I'm reading the reviews, and so far they seem pretty good. A lot faster and less memory-intensive than Firefox, the early reviewers say. As a sample, here's one from Information Week.

As soon as it's ported out to Linux, I'm going to give it a try, and you'll probably find something on it here. Stay tuned ...