Computer Tip: Install .net Framework 4.5 instead of 4.0

In case you are wondering, if you decide to build a Windows system with .net Framework 4.0 you might as well install .net Framework 4.5 instead.

.net Framework 4.5 incorporates all of .net Framework 4 plus updates that shipped before .net Framework 4.5 was released. In essence .net Framework 4.5 is backwards compatible with .net Framework 4.0 and you will not double up on the number of updates needed [i.e. install updates for .net Framework 4.0 and .net Framework 4.5].

At this time, do not expect any type of service pack for .net Framework 3.5.1. So the mounds of updates will continue.

[Ever notice that some of the updates are almost as large as the original installation of .net Framework 3.5.1?]

Note: As .net Framework 4.5 was released after Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 went into extended support, there is no .net Framework 4.5 version for them. You can only install .net Framework 4.0.

It’s official Windows Blue is Windows 8.1

It’s official. The upcoming update for Windows 8 – codenamed Windows Blue – will be called Windows 8.1. It will be offered through the Microsoft store.

A public preview version will be available on June 26, coinciding with its Build developer conference in San Francisco. No actual timeline as yet, but it will be included in time for the holiday season. So working back [from previous releases], expect a “release to manufacturing” in late August or early September. So MSDN, TechNet Plus and OEMs subscribers will get it then.

Tami Reller, corporate vice-president and CFO of Microsoft’s Windows division, didn’t confirm or deny what will be updated in Windows 8.1 including the return of the Start Menu or booting to the desktop [after logging in, of course]. But I wouldn’t bet against it. Just about every blogger who has Microsoft connections report that it’s a done deal.

Not surprising, like a service pack, the upgrade will be free.

[Would you believe some people who comment in various forums actually think Microsoft would charge for the upgrade and were upset and ready to jump to another OS. A bit dumb and childish. Wait until the announcement instead of relying on dumb rumours.]

 

Upgrading your phone? Here’s something funny.

Makes you wonder. I’m at the end of my contract for my cell phone. I have a Blackberry Bold 9700.

I need to wait a bit before the phone I want drops in price for a new contract. So I’m holding onto the Blackberry for a couple of months or so. Phone is in excellent condition. Battery is almost like new.

But I also want to move away from my cell phone provider because I’m in a partial dead-zone. Either I get a good reception or not. I can place the phone on a table and the bars would sometimes go up and down on their own.

I went to a web site which lists cell phone towers across the country and the closest one is quite far.

I had contacted my cell phone provider and they verified I’m in a dead zone. Asked if any towers are to be erected. Said two towers are listed [and they aren’t too far away] but there is no date scheduled. So it could be next month or in 5 years.

So I decided a few months back after the disconnections were getting more frequent, to switch to someone who has closer towers.

The last straw was when I had taken an important call and it disconnected.

[Oh before you ask, Blackberries do not have that antenna issue that the iPhone 4 (right one) had a few years back.]

Funny thing happened tonight. Some company was calling me on behalf of my cell phone provider saying that my contract has expired [I would assume the rate continues on anyways] and my plan has been discontinued.

[Actually I think my contract was up earlier this month, but I digress.]

The guy offered me a free phone. Would you believe an iPhone 4! Just about the time I said I don’t want an iPhone….. Click.

My phone disconnects.

The guy never called back. Wonder if he thought I was p?ssed off.

[Of note, when someone I know had their contract expire, their cell phone provider decided to impose newer and higher rates. How idiotic. If that was me, I would definitely move away from them.]

 

Yahoo fails to break search deal with Microsoft

Since becoming Yahoo CEO, Marissa Mayer has tried and failed in attempts to end a 10-year search agreement between Yahoo and Microsoft that was started in 2010.

Mayer has been eyeing a potential deal with Google but contractual restraints due to the Yahoo’s deal with Microsoft may temporarily kills any deal for now. Yahoo and Google have agreed on an alternative search deal should the collaboration with Microsoft end.

Mayer is a former Google executive. I’m wondering if her closeness with some of the Google executives may make a future deal a bit lopsided [in Google's favor]. In February, Mayer admitted that the 10-year agreement has not resulted in either the market share or revenue that Yahoo wanted to achieve.

The pact expires in 2020 but there is an option in 2015, where either company can back out of the deal or if the Bing engine is sold off. So Mayer has to wait probably up to 2.5 years to kill the pact. [I'm sure Microsoft won't kill it.]

The previous Yahoo management made the deal. Mayer is stuck with it. Unsure if there is an option to exit the pact [aside from the 2015 date], but if they were smart [clearly not], there should of been a wait to break the deal if [for example] certain levels weren’t achieved or even just a generic buyout clause.

Meyer should face it – she has a huge uphill battle. Even switching to Google’s search engine won’t help. Yahoo has other problems with other Yahoo areas such as the account hacking and the number of spam that comes from Yahoo’s mail server. They should make it harder to send out spam such as restrict the number of BCC/CC/To addresses that can be sent out [at least initially].

More privacy issues

Privacy seems to be a bit of a hot topic of late. You would figure the big companies would know better… But they don’t.

Take for example Google. Do you use Gmail? Ever notice those ads on the web page? Well, those ads are tailored not just to your Email but the content inside. Yes. Google is electronically reading your messages and using keywords in the messages to place appropriate ads on your web page.

For example, you are a lawyer; expect to have ads related lawyers show up [if that's possible]. An accountant? Well maybe you will get ads from tax software companies. In the porn business? Well, you’ll get some porn related ads. You get the idea.

Related to privacy is the dumb commercial of the year. In a recent Apple commercial [so far seen in the US] shows people taking pictures and at the ends a voice over says [something like] “More people take pictures from an iPhone every day than any other camera.”

[Note that they used the word "camera" I believe to include all devices that can take a picture such as smartphones and actual cameras.]

I’m wondering how they figured that out. Did they call up Samsung and asked how many pictures have been taken by Samsung users? Surely they can’t find out from stand-alone cameras [i.e. Canon, Nikon, etc.]. And how does Apple know how many pictures someone has taken? Have they been counting somehow without user noticing and sending it to some server without the user’s consent?

And do people really care what brand has taken the most pictures? Who cares. [Will they also say in a future ad that people chat the longest in the iPhone? Most tweets? Most text messages? Most heavy breathing calls [by stalkers]?

Finally, in case you missed it Apple is storing everything you send to the iPhone’s Siri or Dictation software for two years. The first six months in storage will actually contain various about you and your iPhone. After six months, the information is dropped but your voice is still stored for the remaining 18 months.

Why is Apple keeping the voice data? They claim for samples so that they can improve Siri’s/Dictation’s quality of understanding your voice. Uh huh.

And your information? It’s not like they’ll contact you and say “Thank you for providing your voice to our audio collection. Maybe you can read some words for use to improve things.”

Oh ya. Again, did they ask your permission or did you know about it?

The bicycle debate continues now that it is spring

The annual debate on whether cyclists should obey the road laws first is back.

I would like to say I am a cyclist that wears a helmet. I may not be like one of those who bike 50km a day, but I still bike.

You have cyclists who ignore the bike path on the other side of the street – for whatever reason. Or maybe they weave in and out of traffic. Or maybe go through lights and stop signs. Signalling? Few know how to do it.

Some cyclists are acting like they are just like any vehicle when they want to. How many times have you seen a cyclist in a left only turning lane waiting for a light? Not even at the median but the middle lane.

Cyclists do need to follow the same rules as vehicles but unfortunately it is never perfect as I’ve seen vehicles go through lights, rolling stops, etc. [And I’m guessing but I suspect less than half of vehicle drivers actually know what signals do and use them regularly.] So, bicyclists are following their vehicle “brethren” – if they can do it, so can we.

Helmets should be mandatory. Some suggest they don’t fit well or are a nuisance. If you go to a proper bike store [and not Wal-Mart], they’ll get one that fits you. Do they save lives? Probably. In any case, better safe than sorry – or dead.

What I dislike also is that some cyclists decide to drive on streets that are narrow, congested, or the lanes aren’t wide.

Even where helmets are mandatory, I see many who either don’t bother or don’t know. The city has done nothing to remind bicyclists or enforce any rules. [If you actually did get stopped for driving without a helmet, I’m sure you can argue that the city hasn’t enforced the law. Recite the number of tickets related to lack of helmets.]

I remember the time where a kid was biking in the middle of the [side] street, with no helmet [required in this particular part of town] and listening to music with headphones. He didn’t see me or hear me until I honked hard [and then complained with some nasty words].

Canada’s military looking for military flee markets

Here we go again. After previous fiascos related to the military, the Harper government continues to waste more tax payer’s money.

Recall that Canada bought four used submarines from [I believe the United Kingdom] only to have to retrofit them and at least one had major problems.

Then when the Canadian military joined the Iraq war, it was discovered that Canada’s military had no camouflage uniforms suitable for desert warfare [I don’t think the tree colour green/brown or winter white uniforms (or "pyjamas" as some call them) would be suitable in desert terrain. They received a stockpile from the US military [unsure if given, rented, or bought].

Then of course the plan to purchase the new fighter that western [or NATO] allies were to buy together [to drop the price] only to see the price increased quite a bit – let alone problems and delays.

Now comes another one. Would you believe Canada’s military spent $164 million on spare used parts for the military from the US.

9 VH-71 helicopters, that could not fly anymore for various reasons, were bought and stored at a hangar in Nova Scotia [That alone costs money as the hangar doesn’t belong to the military]. They were to be used as parts for the current aging helicopters that Canada uses in search and rescue operations. I guess the US doesn’t use them or are fazing them out.

These helicopters were not used for search and rescue operations but as the helicopters to ferry current and previous US Presidents and other government officials around – the so-called “Marine One”.

Some are suggesting that maybe they can be fixed [at how much more] but they don’t have an air worthiness certificate and also lack electronics needed for search and rescue. And if they were used, the military would buy more used parts to replace what goes into service.

The suggestion to see if these relics could be used again was asked by the opposition before many times and only now Defence Minister Peter MacKay has looked at the option.

Which brings me to this question: Why does the Canadian military like to buy used equipment?

Maybe Canada should shop around the world at military flee markets.