Corey Gouker's Machine Inside the Mind

First an obvious one from the Sidebar... This is a known bug but it's stupid and annoying. Notice anything in the linked screenshot? According to the Sidebar and according to the Display Settings the gadgets and such should be on the right side of my left monitor. Obviously they're not. After a restart of the PC the Sidebar ends up in that location. At which point you have to pull up the properties again and set it to the right side of monitor 3.

If you have a sharp eye you might have also noticed something else. This one is a shell bug. Notice the taskbar has a bit more going on than it should? Especially over in that right side there's just stuff that should definitely be black.

Here's another example, you can clearly see what's happening here. The taskbar glass effect is grabbing the wrong portion of the image for the effect. It's taking the image from the 2nd monitor not the 1st. Here's the actual background image (converted from a BMP). Jon and I thought the fix would be to just turn glass off then on so I restarted the DWM service that didn't work. Neither did a restart. So we're not sure if this is the same known bug we've seen during the beta or something else. The fix however is to turn on the auto-hiding of the taskbar. Immediately after doing that the problem is fixed. Disabling the auto-hiding breaks it again .

One other thing you'll notice from the background image is that it doesn't quite match the screenshot of the desktop. Well this is more of a feature request and something that can be done with UltraMon but something clearly the shell team didn't have time nor thought was worthy of doing for Vista. Basically I've got 3 24" monitors at 1920x1200. I've got my main monitor 1 set to the middle where I like my taskbar. 2 is to the left, and 3 to the right. The problem is that I'm a bit more of a pixel perfectionist than most and so having one desktop background spread across all 3 monitors is a must. There's only 2 ways of doing this. First is to use a third party app like UltraMon. And the second approach is to pop open Paint or Photoshop and create an image that's the right size (5760x1200) in my case. Then paste in the 3 images to create one image to stretch about whichever way you'd please.

Now logic would dictact that WYSIWYG with the background image. You'd expect it to go 123, left, middle, right. Well that's not the correct logic according to the methods used for the Desktop Background settings in Vista. If you have a set up similar to my circumstances, which I'll concede many don't... *cough* stupid speech recognition vulnerability. Then I'm just like some at ZDNet and I'd just be making something of nothing. However, if you also have Aristotle like perfection you'll want to make sure your multimon background is set up right.

To do this you need to remember that Windows will start the background image from your "main" monitor and you need to have things set to Tile mode. In my case the monitors go 213. So while the start of image should be at the left mine is in the middle. Next you have to make sure the image flows and overflows from left to right, regardless of monitor numbering. To better illustrate this click here. Well, I hope that better illustrates things with the description:

1, Middle monitor = Left side of image in Photshop.
2, Left monitor = Right side of image in Photoshop.
3, Right monitor = Middle of image in Photoshop.

If not then maybe heading over to shellrevealed would be a good idea . Tell them that you want to be able to set a different background image for each attached display and not have to deal with this mess. Finally if you like the backgrounds shown or want to see some other cool stuff head over to mandolux.

UPDATE: Dom and I were discussing how annoying desktop icons have become. I was ranting about how I wish the Recycle Bin were a sidebar thing instead of being the only desktop icon that I'd have floating around. So I disabled it in Personalization. He instead just unchecked Show Desktop Icons from the Properties menu on the Desktop. I gave this a go just for the heck of it since I've still got a couple other temporary icons on the desktop that I didn't want to move and low and behold. The bloody taskbar glass bug was resolved. Obviously there's something funky going on here and I'm sure it wasn't really considered to be significant enough to fix since not enough people would hit it. At any rate, just a work around for anyone who wants to know...

I just got back from my local QFC/Starbucks and sadly that free Vista/T-Mobile Hotspot access wasn't working today though according to the Vista blog it should've been. I'm going to go back tomorrow and again on the 30th to test for sure. But apparently whatever new access site that should've gone live hasn't as the gateway page didn't look any different and there was nothing special that said, "hey look you're using Vista here's some free wifi". To verify things I logged in using another account and checked skysurprise.com. Nothing really special other than that very fine print that says starting from the 30th. So either the Vista blog is lying or T-Mobile are just getting lazy and waiting till the 30th.

So why bother walking the 400 yards or so to the Starbucks when I've got perfectly good WiFi at home. Well, Dom, Jon, and I all thought that they're probably be lazy and determine the Vistaness of any given laptop by just checking the user-agent. So I went with my Vista PC in hand with the user-agent set to spoof MSIE 6.0 and NT 5.1 thinking that even though I was running Vista it should think I'm running XP. If it worked then obviously running a XP machine and spoofing your user-agent to something like this:

Mozilla/4.0+(compatible;+ MSIE+7.0;+Windows+NT+6.0; +SLCC1;+.NET+CLR+2.0.50727;+Media+Center+PC+5.0;+.NET+CLR+3.0.04506;+InfoPath.2;+.NET+CLR+1.1.4322)

Should also work to get you free acess on a XP machine because they've got no other way (other than to use some ActiveX control or client-side app) to determine whether the client is XP or Vista. I kinda doubt their hardware is going to be determining it. That would be too much work.

So anyway if any of you get bored just pop open regedt32 and go for it:

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Internet Settings\5.0\User Agent]
"Version"="MSIE 7.0"
"Platform"="Windows NT 6.0"

I'm also curious if they'll be good and let Firefox on Vista users in for their free WiFi or if they'll have to spoof their user-agent as well.

UPDATE: Looks like Engadget got the same idea. However contrary to the earlier idea and what Engadget claim, just changing your user-agent doesn't get you free WiFi. It seems that a key is generated after you install the required tmobile.cab ActiveX control. When viewing the properties for this add-on you find that it's actually netdiag Class. Here's a little code snip from the accountLogon page:

<body onload="checkit()">
<object classid="clsid:A448E34F-EC78-4277-BDC5-DFA68C83C401" id="tmvista" codebase="https://service1.hotspot.t-mobile.com/vista/pages/tmobile.cab" ></object>

<script language="javascript">
<!--
 function checkit() {
  var result = tmvista.CheckSpeed('hardcd');
  window.location.replace("checkVista.jsp?ticket=" + result);
 }
-->
</script>

I'm a bit surprised they actually thought of the user-agent hack. But using an ActiveX control is a bit predictable. I've not had a chance to see what the tmobile.dll actually does.

All that being said. When you have your user-agent set to NT 5.1 (XP) it does indeed redirect you from the /vista page to an awareness page. If you switch to NT 6.0 and IE 7.0 you instead get redirected to this page to create your trial account. Once your trial account has been created you're then redirected back to the login page. After you login it sends you to a page to install the ActiveX control above. Once that is done it creates a ticket which is then passed to whatever proxy gateway they have which enables your untethered access to the Internet whether that be in Firefox or IE7. If you do not install the ActiveX control (say for example by spoofing in Firefox) you get a message like the following: "You are trying to log in with an operating system that is incompatible with your account. Please try again with the Windows Vista operating system installed on your laptop."

Now I'm going to guess that it's probably pretty easy to see what's going on with that ActiveX control and just pass your own ticket. But I'll leave that to someone else.

If you want to download the 655KB ActiveX control click here and have fun.

UPDATE: Again people this DOES NOT WORK. It's not a question of just downloading the ActiveX control it has to run and it has to pass on a Vista machine before T-Mobile allow you fully onto the Internet. Even if you switch your user-agent and create the trial account (which you can do on a Mac, PC, or Linux, and in IE or Firefox or whatever) by changing your user-agent to NT 6.0 and IE7.0 you still won't get onto the Internet until you validate your Vista install by installing the ActiveX control. Think of the Windows Genuine Advantage stuff on downloads.microsoft.com.

UPDATE: After talking to Jon and someone else who has far greater will than I (wtbw) for all things related to debugging and disassembling there are some more details to provide. From what can be seen it looks like the ActiveX control is simply using the value of  _time64 which is the number of seconds since midnight 1/1/1970 dividing that by 300 prefixing that string with hardcdPadded then making it a nice hex MD5 token for the /vista/pages/checkVista.jsp page.

It's possible that the ActiveX control is looking for the referral from TMO's own servers but it would be worth a shot to write a standalone app to do the above then send the request and token over to this page. You could do this from a web page however you'd have to host that locally since well, you can't really get to the net until you bypass the ActiveX control anyway. So a quick non-complete example in one line of semi C# would be:

System.Cryptography.Thingy.MD5Hash.HashThisThing("hardcdPadded" + (DateTime.Now.ToSeconds/300).ToString())

Obviously you'd want this to be cross platform or whatever. But I'll leave that to the reader...

Those of you wanting to jump right in to the pH balanced fun of Vista can now do so thanks to NewEgg. They're now shipping those lovely holographic DVD's of Vista, $200 gets you Vista Ultimate OEM. Those of you who want some decent use out of those 4GB+ systems and need 64-bit will have to wait just a little bit as they don't have those DVD's in stock. Buying your OS through this channel is totally cool, buy some more RAM or another HDD and it's all good. You'll probably need it for Vista anyway. Or better yet buy yourself a nice NTSC/ATSC/QAM tuner and start using Media Center, it's all there in Ultimate.

My honest advice though is that if your system is 2 years old you might as well just retire the system to the kids rig or spare PC and buy a new Dell or the like with Vista preloaded. You'll have less to worry about with drivers and you'll definitely have a better experience. Plus you should be able to buy an extra license for the home as well which is relatively cheap.

Finally, it really will be at least till the end of the year before Vista truly meets the XP quality levels, patches, real RTM drivers, super glue, super massive black holes, whatever it takes, but until the end of the year I probably won't be surprised to hear quite a few horror stories and pain points. But you know if XP can really get up to snuff with SP2 there's no reason Vista can't either.

Enjoy your goods, and get ready for that "wow"...

What can I say really. This has got to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard. It's about as good as saying something causes cancer when these days everything causes cancer. Oh and I guess SeaTac better be on the look out since there's this webcam and the terrorists are watching. Heck it's even broadcast over cable, oh my. I wonder what they could be planning with all those traffic cams!? The horror of it all.

Dom sent me this link to a Flash demo of Y! Messenger for Vista. Three things I notice right away:

1. It's got glass.
2. It's got tabs.
3. It makes use of the Sidebar.

I really don't get why the WLM team got lazy and didn't bother doing anything special for Vista with glass and the Sidebar, makes no sense considering the amount of time they knew they'd have before Vista shipped. I suppose they had other priorities though like adding more winks and other things that they can charge for.

Oh and the way Yahoo has done the tabs, from first impressions, they've got it down just right. Being able to drag and drop them seems really nice.

The last few times Jon and I have met with the MSN/WLM folks they seem to dislike the fact that so many people use Plus! Live despite the fact that many of the same people on those teams use the app themselves. Now what I don't understand is that if they were so against the add-on app then why don't they just start taking some of the features that clearly people want and add them in? It's like half the work has already been done. Features that if done would make me drop Plus! Live for WLM are:

1. Tabs
2. Logging that works as well as Plus, including an option for plain text.
3. Larger text buffer so I can send at least 1100 characters (and yes this isn't just a geek thing, my grandma likes to type whole letters out in IM form).

Finally get moving and implement glass! And as a final suggestion, never ever say "good suggestion, thanks" ever again.

So I just got done doing a second clean install on my main PC. This PC for the softies out there is pretty much identical to one of the systems used during the Media Center TakeHome Program. I had just clean installed yesterday morning because my last install was just odd, for example plugging in a SanDisk Micro into the USB and it would never be detected. Ditto with the USB hub / memory card reader on my Dell 2405FPW. Plus the fact that I kept getting blue screens 2 to 3 times a day was enough for me. I did a full memory test with extended 2 pass and verified the memory was fine but kept getting page errors and the like. Needless to say I just figured it was a lemon install so I installed yesterday.

When I reinstalled I kept the full 4GB of RAM in the system and I left the USB hub and SanDisk Micro plugged into the USB. Unfortunately after I finished installed neither of these devices were being detected. The BIOS still showed 4GB of RAM and Vista still showed 2.75GB of RAM usable (the usable RAM I know is normal). So then I set the PC to tripple mon. Then I installed WLM 8.1 beta. Then I restarted. Got back up and noticed an error report. Looking further I noticed I already had 43 to report! Still no USB hub showing up (even though the BIOS sees it fine), but the Micro finally shows up. So I try and format the device from Computer by right clicking then go to Format. The dialog window never appears, even after waiting 5 minutes. Frustrated I just shut the system down. Unplug both of the USB devices mentioned, pop open the system then I play around with the RAM, I try doing 2GB in single channel, then 2GB in dual channel, then the other 2GB in both modes, then 1 chip from 1 set and the other from the other. Basically just making sure I wasn't forgetting to test everything (with the last installs BSOD's fresh in my mind). It's fun to note that every time I booted with 2GB of RAM both USB devices showed up. I then tried going back to 4GB and again the USB devices are unrecognized by Windows (they appear as unrecognized in Device Manager). Enough fiddling I go back to 2GB in dual channel. I just want this bloody thing to work right.

I get the USB hub working finally, I'm able to format some SD from the memory reader for the first time since installing Vista on this system. The dialog to format the SanDisk Micro comes up immediately on the first try and I'm able to format that and enable ReadyBoost to use the extra 1.8GB it provides.

So this morning in a New Year I'm feeling pretty good about the system, not wanting to throw it off my balcony. I get a link from Mark pointing me to a new music vid on YouTube. Click to go there, then click to install Flash from Adobe. And now the frustration is back again. Having only used IE like 3 times (once to get beta drivers for the Creative XFi) I've not had a chance to change any settings from default. So what's the first thing I see when I go to install Flash? Hmm well, I can't it won't let me. The first thing you should notice about that screenshot is that IE says Protected Mode is Off in the bottom right. According to the default settings in the Security dialog that's incorrect and the setting is Enabled. Even when I toggle this setting on and off and restart the system the status does not update in the bottom right.

Next I put on my "I'm now going to be my Mom" hat and go well beyond my capabilities by adjusting the settings and lower everything to the lowest possible options without going into anything too advanced. Now my son knows that this should now basically put me at the same level as IE7 on XP would since the default back then was Medium and Protected Mode isn't even an option. Sadly for me, the Mom, I still can't watch anything off YouTube because Flash won't install. I try calling my son but he's being a jerk and isn't answering the phone or my IM's. So I then go in and figure out how to add adobe.com to the trusted sites. Sadly this still doesn't work. I then find the Advanced button and decide to start messing around. Not knowing what any of these things do I just set everything to Enable. I do finally get my Flash to install so I can watch stuff on YouTube. But when I do finally get a hold of my son he says he can't believe how big of a security risk I've put myself in and that it's no wonder I get spyware all the time.

Anyway, besides having just exploded into a rant I hope the point did get across. WTH is going on here? This is a bloody clean install, I shouldn't be needing to go through hell just to get a signed ActiveX control to install and run. There's no way in hell my Mom would ever be able to figure this out and sadly because the damned Remote Assistance NAT issues still haven't been resolved in Vista I'm still inclined to tell her that it's a waste of my time and that she should either use Firefox or just buy a Mac.

UPDATE: I just set the IE7 security settings back to default for a third time and for the second time reset after having done the change. Sure enough Flash now installs with the default settings. Still note that Protect Mode shows as being Off in the bottom right. Now I'm willing to concede that it was probably just some minor quirk and the setting might not have taken even after setting it twice and restarting. But what type of user experience is that?