There are many ways that shareware developers and content providers can show disrespect and contempt for their customers. Some are the result of paranoia on the part of the developers while others are the result of laziness and/or blatant greed on their part.

One example of this I frequently encounter is the unrealistic installation limitation.

Once upon a time a family could barely afford a single computer. It wasn’t unreasonable for a shareware distributor to limit the number of computers you could install a single copy of their application on. They fairly reasoned that in the vast majority of cases the only time you would need to install multiple times was if you were letting all your friends install your copy, robbing the developers and distributors of earned income. Thus were born limits on the number of times you could install a copy of software you purchased. The most draconian of these licenses would only allow you to install one time on one computer. Less extreme licenses allowed you to create a backup copy, and family licenses, usually more expensive, allowed you to install the software on two or three other computers on a home local area network (LAN).

I would argue that software manufacturers/distributors these days need to rethink their licensing restrictions with an eye to the current reality.  In the 21st century, despite the economy, families frequently have several computers. More importantly, we are far more likely to update the operating system of our computers at least once in their lifetime. Recently we’ve seen major updates from all the big players, Microsoft with Windows 7, Macintosh with OS X Snow Leopard and several distros of Linux. For many of us these updates required a fresh installation of the OS and a re-installation of all our applications and software, at least those programs that allowed us to reinstall. No one should have to face the loss of a favorite application simply because they’ve updated their computer from XP to Vista and now to 7. “Oh sorry, you’ve exceeded the number of installations allowed under the terms of use”. Users shouldn’t be penalized for trying to keep their systems current. Personally I’ve encountered these limitations with (former) favorites like RoboForm and DFX Pro. I’m sure you can think of a few examples yourself. I don’t mind having to call and explain that I’m reinstalling on the same computer after an OS upgrade. But I resent encountering the presumption that I’m pirating software and being told I have to re-purchase the software with no other option offered.

Here’s a thought; Make your software able to read the machine address (MAC address) of the computer at installation. With every re-installation it reads the MAC address and if it’s the same (machine addresses aren’t based on the operating system) it re-installs without a fuss.

Developers need to do a better job to accommodate  their customers in the legal and reasonable use of their software. They need to quit assuming their customers are out to do nothing but take advantage of them. Every day there are more and more updated and often no-cost alternatives to pricey applications. If you want to retain your customers and encourage their loyalty treat them with respect and construct your licenses in accordance with the current realities of computer ownership. Alternatively, keep your pricing low so that I can afford to purchase a license for my desktop, laptop and netbook.

Related articles by Zemanta

• 7 reasons not to upgrade to Windows 7 (en.onsoftware.com)
• Windows 7 already bigger than Snow Leopard and Linux combined (downloadsquad.com)
• Opinion: Is Windows 7 as good as it sounds? (netnewsdaily.com)
• Netbook Linux Guide Lets You Easily Kick Windows XP To The Curb [Linux] (gizmodo.com)
• Microsoft to schools: Share a PC (news.cnet.com)

Image by juhansonin via Flickr

Users of electronics relate to their devices through a graphic user interface, or GUI. The iPhone and iPod Touch have received a lot of accolades for their revolutionary user interface. Some users buy their phones based largely on the user interface. Whether your computer runs Windows, Linux or Macintosh, most of your interaction with your computer is through the graphic user interface (desktop).

When an operating system is upgraded, the most noticed features involve the GUI. Apple is famous for their GUI. Microsoft has for years been playing catch-up with Apple over the user interface. Linux users are flocking to Ubuntu, primarily due to its friendly and functional user interface. We have recently seen new releases of Mac’s OS X, Windows 7 and Ubuntu 9.10, all of which focused on a better experience for the user by improvements to the GUI.

At the same time many of us “geeks” continue to complain about the number of “clueless users”, computer owners who don’t understand much about their computer beyond the user interface. It’s a situation akin to the car owner who knows how to drive the car but has no idea what goes on under the hood, no clue as to how to add oil or change the filters. People who mistake the desktop for their computer or AOL for the internet are the stock of many in-jokes in the IT world. Many of us who have worked help desks shake our heads at the stories we’ve heard. We think it’s a shame that more people aren’t interested in the inner workings of their computers or that more don’t take an interest in the amazing things a user can accomplish from the command line.

I suspect that in the interest of making computers “user friendly” we’ve created a situation in which people don’t have to learn much about their own computers. GUIs are so easy to navigate there’s hardly a need to delve further into commands, scripts and other advanced functions.

Even when the effort is made to get users to think more about their computer’s functioning it’s often unappreciated. With Windows Vista Microsoft introduced the User Account Control (UAC), an effort to alert users when a program or website attempted to make changes to their system. The unintended result was that either users disabled UAC altogether or became jaded and clicked “approve” without reading the content of the warning. This attempt to create more aware users failed, so much so that in Windows 7 Microsoft grants us the ability to restrict the UAC notices that pop up.

Many computer users want to be just that, users. They have no interest in knowing why things happen on their computers, they just want them to work the way they need them to work. The inability of legacy apps to run on newer systems, their inability to make their 1999 printer work with their 2009 operating system simply frustrates them as there’s no “fix this problem” icon on the desktop. It’s doubly frustrating to those of us who try to help them by explaining why the system is failing them. They don’t want to know, they just want it to work.

Maybe if GUIs were a bit less intuitive, maybe if computer interrfaces required their user to understand a bit more about why problems occur and what can be done to remedy them  we’d have fewer “clueless users”.

Of course there would also be less need for us geeks.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Microsoft admits Mac was Windows 7 muse (theregister.co.uk)
• Windows 7 Was ‘Inspired By Mac’ ? No, No Says Microsoft! (lockergnome.com)
• Windows 7 Usage Outpaces Vista, Closes In on Mac (blogs.wsj.com)
• Windows 8 wish list (lockergnome.com)

Image by inane_spiel via Flickr

Now and then I hear someone brag that they don’t use anti-virus software. “I never visit ‘bad’ websites, I don’t file share and I don’t ever view porn. Why should I bother with software that can slow my machine down?”

I’m not sure how they convince themselves their computers aren’t already compromized. After all, they can’t run a virus scan without installing an anti-virus application. They could use an on-line virus scan I suppose, but can they trust that to scan every folder and file on their machine?

It’s not so much what a virus might do to your own computer. If you got a virus that only afflicted your personal computer, no one else would have a worry. It’s the fact that many viruses only use an infected machine to reach out through email and shared files to infect other machines that concerns the rest of us. We don’t want your lax security to result in our computer getting infected.

Now there’s an even better reason to encourage everyone you know to install and use an effective anti-virus solution. Failing to do so could ruin your reputation.

Of all the sinister things that Internet viruses do, this might be the worst: They can make you an unsuspecting collector of child pornography.

Heinous pictures and videos can be deposited on computers by viruses — the malicious programs better known for swiping your credit card numbers. In this twist, it’s your reputation that’s stolen.

Pedophiles can exploit virus-infected PCs to remotely store and view their stash without fear they’ll get caught. Pranksters or someone trying to frame you can tap viruses to make it appear that you surf illegal Web sites.

Whatever the motivation, you get child porn on your computer — and might not realize it until police knock at your door.

An Associated Press investigation found cases in which innocent people have been branded as pedophiles after their co-workers or loved ones stumbled upon child porn placed on a PC through a virus. It can cost victims hundreds of thousands of dollars to prove their innocence.

Their situations are complicated by the fact that actual pedophiles often blame viruses — a defense rightfully viewed with skepticism by law enforcement.

“It’s an example of the old `dog ate my homework’ excuse,” says Phil Malone, director of the Cyberlaw Clinic at Harvard’s Berkman Center for Internet & Society. “The problem is, sometimes the dog does eat your homework.”

One case involved Michael Fiola, a former investigator with the Massachusetts agency that oversees workers’ compensation.

In 2007, Fiola’s bosses became suspicious after the Internet bill for his state-issued laptop showed that he used 4 1/2 times more data than his colleagues. A technician found child porn in the PC folder that stores images viewed online.

Fiola was fired and charged with possession of child pornography, which carries up to five years in prison. He endured death threats, his car tires were slashed and he was shunned by friends.

Fiola and his wife fought the case, spending $250,000 on legal fees. They liquidated their savings, took a second mortgage and sold their car.

An inspection for his defense revealed the laptop was severely infected. It was programmed to visit as many as 40 child porn sites per minute — an inhuman feat. While Fiola and his wife were out to dinner one night, someone logged on to the computer and porn flowed in for an hour and a half.

Prosecutors performed another test and confirmed the defense findings. The charge was dropped — 11 months after it was filed.

The Fiolas say they have health problems from the stress of the case. They say they’ve talked to dozens of lawyers but can’t get one to sue the state, because of a cap on the amount they can recover.

“It ruined my life, my wife’s life and my family’s life,” he says.

At any moment, about 20 million of the estimated 1 billion Internet-connected PCs worldwide are infected with viruses that could give hackers full control, according to security software maker F-Secure Corp. Computers often get infected when people open e-mail attachments from unknown sources or visit a malicious Web page.

Pedophiles can tap viruses in several ways. The simplest is to force someone else’s computer to surf child porn sites, collecting images along the way. Or a computer can be made into a warehouse for pictures and videos that can be viewed remotely when the PC is online.

In the first publicly known cases of individuals being victimized, two men in the United Kingdom were cleared in 2003 after viruses were shown to have been responsible for the child porn on their PCs.

In one case, an infected e-mail or pop-up ad poisoned a defense contractor’s PC and downloaded the offensive pictures.

In the other, a virus changed the home page on a man’s Web browser to display child porn, a discovery made by his 7-year-old daughter. The man spent more than a week in jail and three months in a halfway house, and lost custody of his daughter.

Chris Watts, a computer examiner in Britain, says he helped clear a hotel manager whose co-workers found child porn on the PC they shared with him.

Watts found that while surfing the Internet for ways to play computer games without paying for them, the manager had visited a site for pirated software. It redirected visitors to child porn sites if they were inactive for a certain period.

(Source-mail.com)

No anti-virus program is 100% effective. While it’s not recommended to have more than one AV application running at the same time, you can add a layer of protection to your AV regime with an application like WinPatrol or ThreatFire.  Apps like these will alert you should any rogue program or virus attempt to change system settings or infect your registry. You should also make sure to keep your AV software updated and run frequent scans.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Being Framed for Child Porn… by PC Virus (abcnews.go.com)
• AP IMPACT: Framed for child porn _ by a PC virus (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Con Artists Making Millions With Scareware Software (shoppingblog.com)
• Online Banking Passwords at Risk – Chances to Fight it…SLIM and NONE! (pindebit.blogspot.com)
• Fake security software ‘installed on millions of PCs’ (telegraph.co.uk)
• Five Best Antivirus Applications [Hive Five] (lifehacker.com)
• Microsoft Security Essentials – Free Anti Virus Protection Available for Download (ducknetweb.blogspot.com)