Defensive Computing

In Windows XP, Task Manager is like the dashboard of a car. It's your interface into what's going on under the hood. It can tell you things such as: what programs are running in the background that you can't see, how busy the processor (CPU) is, which programs are making the greatest demands on the processor, how much ram is free, the number of hard disk reads/writes by each program, etc. etc. When your computer is running slow, or seemingly frozen, Task Manager should be the first thing you turn to.

For whatever reason, Microsoft has hidden Task Manager. If you look for it in the usual way, Start -> Programs, it's not there. It should be under Accessories -> System Tools, but instead Microsoft included the Character Map program.

Since Task Manager is both useful and hidden, I suggest having it run automatically when Windows starts up and instructions for doing this follow.

The end result of the steps below is a dark green square in the system tray (a.k.a. notification area). If the square remains dark green, the processor is on a virtual coffee break. The box is like a vertical bar graph, where light green on the bottom indicates how busy the processor is. If the bottom half of the box is light green, the processor is using half of its total capacity. If the square turns entirely light green, the processor is running at 100% capacity.

One warning that your computer might be infected with something malicious (virus, spyware, Trojan, etc.) is that processor is busy when you're not. That is, if you are not running anything on the computer and Task Manager indicates the processor is consistently more than 10% busy (give or take), it's worth looking into, to see which program is using the processor.

Running Task Manager at System Startup

In Windows XP, right click on the Start button and select "Open All Users". Then double click on the Programs folder, then double click on the Startup folder. Minimize this instance of Windows Explorer, we'll return to it later.

Open another copy of windows explorer and navigate to
C:\WINDOWS\system32\taskmgr.exe

Right click on the taskmgr.exe file and opt to '"Create Shortcut". Then right click on the shortcut you just made and Cut it.

Go back to the first instance of Windows Explorer (positioned at the Startup folder) and Paste the shortcut into the Startup folder.

Although not required, I suggest right clicking on the shortcut and renaming it "Task Manger". Then right click on the shortcut again and get the Properties. Change it from running in a "Normal window", to running "Minimized" and click the OK button.

Next, double click on the same shortcut to run Task Manager. It should show up in the system tray. Open Task Manager and on the Options menu, turn off "Always on top" and turn on "Hide When Minimized".

There are many data items that Task Manager can display. To see them, from the View menu, select "Select Columns...". It defaults to showing the User Name which I don't find useful. I suggest adding the "CPU Time" column to see the total CPU used by a program (technically a process). The column labeled CPU shows only the current CPU usage.

Click the OK button when you are done selecting columns. If you like, you can change the sequence of the columns in the display just by dragging the column heading.

Restart Windows XP and you should see the dark green box in the system tray. If not, join the crowd. I suspect this is due to a video driver bug, but it may be a Windows bug. I've seen it all too often.

Update: I typically use the classic, single column, Start menu. On one Windows XP Professional machine, the Settings menu has a sub-menu called "Windows Security" that links directly to Task Manager. I checked a number of Windows XP machines, Home and Pro, but found this on only one. August 5, 2007.

This is a continuation of Tuesday's posting (Everybody likes Mozy--except me. Part 1), which introduced the Mozy online backup service and software and where I started offering my opinions. Since Tuesday, I came across two more positive Mozy reviews.

In April, Serdar Yegulalp, writing for InformationWeek, reviewed Online Vault, Carbonite, eSureIT, iBackup and Mozy (Five Online Backup Services Keep Your Data Safe, April 9, 2007). He concluded that "The all-around winner for regular users and small business from this bunch was definitely Mozy, both for its plan structure and its unobtrusive client."

Also in April, BusinessWeek had a short article by Arik Hesseldahl about the beta release of Mozy for the Mac where he said "I've used Mozy on the Windows machine at the office, and actually came to like it a great deal" (Mozy Comes To Mac Today! April 25, 2007).

Encryption

Anyone considering backing up sensitive files has to be concerned with security and encryption. Walter Mossberg barely mentioned security, but David Pogue warned:

"Then there's the security thing. All four companies insist that your files are encrypted before they even leave your computer. But if you still can't shake the image of backup-company employees rooting through your files and laughing their heads off, then this may not be the backup method for you."
Note: He was referring to the idea of off-site backups, not specifically to Mozy.

At first glance, Mozy security sounds impressive--files are encrypted on your PC using 448-bit Blowfish encryption and then transferred over the Internet to Mozy using 128-bit Secure Socket Layer (SSL) encryption. But let's take a step back.

• Mozy software encrypts the files on your computer
• To do this, the Mozy software needs to know the encryption key (basically a password)
• Mozy stores your files on Mozy's computers

The problem here is that Mozy is doing everything. In effect, Mozy makes the key, the lock and the safe.

How files are transferred between the PC and Mozy has nothing to do with the real security issue, as I see it. The SSL encryption used during the transfer offers protection from interception while the files are in transit, but no protection from Mozy.

There are two ways the Mozy software learns the encryption key/password--either you pick one and type it into the program, or the program will chose a password on its own. As they explain:

"You have the option of using a Mozy key, or your own private key to encrypt your data. Note, that if you use your own private key, you must be very careful about not losing it, because if you do, we won't be able to help ... Most users opt to use the Mozy key, but it's up to you."
Note: "key" can be thought of as a password and "private key" can be thought of as you're choosing the password.

Using a key/password generated by the Mozy software may not sound so bad, but it means your sensitive files are not secure.

In Part 1, I quoted Walter Mossberg as saying "Both companies encrypt the backed-up files and say they don't view them." Not that they can't view them, but that they don't view them. And the Mozy warning--do not lose your key/password or they can't help you--implies that when their software chooses the password, they can help you. They must know the password.

Even if you choose the encryption password, you are trusting the Mozy software not to externalize it, either on purpose or by accident. When it comes to backing up sensitive files, there is no place for trust in the equation.

This situation is not at all unique to Mozy. Other online storage companies also provide software that encrypts your files. I suggest using a backup scheme where software from one company does the encryption while an unrelated company stores the files.

Restoring Files

When it comes to restoring files, Mozy can be slow. You can't simply go to their Web site, navigate to your needed files and download them. Instead, you have to request all the files you need up front (don't forget any) and wait. In Mozy's own words:

"Depending on how large the restore is, it could take a few minutes or a few hours for Mozy to prepare the data for you. When it's ready, you will be emailed letting you know you can download it. When you get the email, go to your Account page and from there you can download the restored data."

If you can imagine a situation where you need to access your off-site backup files quickly, Mozy might not be an optimal fit. Joe Hruska at Ars Technica described his experience restoring files using the Web-based interface: "When I requested a restore build as a free user, it took Mozy 36 hours to make my restore file available versus only 18 minutes when I requested the same service as a paying customer."

Only 18 minutes? With the nothing-special backup service I use, it takes less than 18 seconds to start downloading files, and e-mail is not involved at all. And 36 hours seems excessive, even for a free service.

More Gripes

There are a couple things I don't like about the way Mozy backs up files.

For one, their software copies open and locked files. No thanks, I prefer my files closed and unlocked when they are backed up. Why they do this, I don't know. What problem are they solving? Since the Mozy software runs all the time, there should be very little delay between when a file is closed and when it's sent off-site. I prefer backup software that issues a warning when it tries to copy an open or locked file.

Part 1 of this blog had a discussion of why Mozy is motivated to store as little data as possible. This may explain why Mozy doesn't always back up entire files. They try to be smart about it and only back up the pieces of a file that changed, a feature they call "block level incremental backups". I'm a pessimist, and this strikes me as just something else that can go wrong. I prefer my backups simple, and backing up pieces of files and later putting all the pieces together, is complicated.

The Ars Technica review had this gripe: "Unlike several of the other programs we tested, Mozy doesn't offer a 'Backup this file' option when an item is right-clicked inside Windows Explorer."

Being a computer nerd, I'm comfortable using FTP to transfer files. Mozy does not allow uploads or downloads via FTP.

Warranty

Ed Foster writes The Gripe Line column for InfoWorld. Back in February, he wrote a memorable article called Backup Service EULAs Warrant a Closer Look (alternate link). A reader of his column reviewed the terms of service for Mozy, Iron Mountain, Carbonite, Xdrive, and SOSonlinebackup. According to Ed, "All disavowed that the product had to actually function at all except Iron Mountain, which in its warranty promises to at least try to fix bugs..."

The unnamed Gripe Line reader said it well: "The availability of data, in essence, completely defines the service itself. Yet, all of the online backup companies I surveyed expressly disclaim any responsibility for actually delivering on the service they claim to offer." Three of the companies, Mozy being one of them, disavow damages for their own negligence.

And here's an analogy that really puts it in perspective: "Who would buy life insurance if the carrier's terms of service has a clause that says that if you die, they have no real obligation to pay the claim?"

Finally, on a (much) lighter note, some people may have a hard time complying with parts of Mozy's End User License Agreement. In the LIMITATION OF LIABILITY section it says:

"FURTHERMORE, YOU AGREE TO USE THE SOFTWARE OR SERVICE
EXCLUSIVELY FOR GOOD AND FOR AWESOME."

Talk about restrictive. And then there is this, in the next paragraph:

"DO NOT TAUNT HAPPY FUN BALL."

Wikipedia has an explanation of Happy Fun Ball. As lawyer jokes go, this one is pretty good.

To end on a legal note, that's my case.

For a company in the boring business of online file storage, Mozy gets more than its share of press coverage, and from what I've seen, it's all been positive. Mozy attracted attention back in December 2006 when they started offering unlimited file storage for $5 per month or $55 per year (rounded off).

The first Mozy review I ran across was by Walter Mossberg in The Wall Street Journal ("These Services Make Backing Up Your Files Safe and Inexpensive", December 14, 2006). He liked Mozy, so I spent some time reviewing them for a class I teach on backing up your computer. My opinion differed from Mr. Mossberg's, not for the first time.

Then in January 2007, David Pogue, writing in The New York Times, also liked the service ("Fewer Excuses For Not Doing A PC Backup", January 4, 2007). I blew that off too. But a couple weeks ago the tech Web site Ars Technica published a review of online storage providers by Joel Hruska that recommended Mozy as the best of the bunch ("Online backup solutions: a review", July 16, 2007). For me, that was the final straw. Time to speak up.

The good reviews

In his review Walter Mossberg compared Mozy to Carbonite, another online storage company. He found Mozy "easy to set up and easy to use" and seemed impressed that using the Web-based interface he could restore files on a Macintosh computer. Security is an obvious concern with off-site storage and addressing it he said, "Both companies encrypt the backed-up files and say they don't view them." Finally, he notes that "you can back up multiple computers--but you have to pay extra for each additional machine."

Pogue also found Mozy more flexible than Carbonite, citing as an example the fact that backups can either be continuous or run at specified times and dates. He pointed out that Mozy can back up only changed portions of files, and he liked that you can review 30 days of backups (more on this below). His only criticism was minor, he felt that Mozy might not be the best choice for beginners as some of its options are "novice-hostile."

Writing for Ars Technica, Joe Hruska reviewed Xdrive, Backup/PC, Mozy and Carbonite and concluded: "Of the services we tested here, Mozy Online struck the best balance between functionality and flexibility and is our overall top pick for an online backup service."

My opinions

To start with, I don't like any backup service whose software has to run constantly in the background. The more software running on a computer the greater the chance of something going wrong. I prefer a backup scheme where the backups happen on a schedule and/or on demand. Thus, 99 percent of the time there is no backup software running. I don't like my computer doing stuff without me knowing about it.

And, if I had to go with background software that never shuts down, my preference would be for a mature product. Something that's at version 11 and has been around for years. Mozy is a relatively new company; it was founded in 2005. In December of 2006 when Mr. Mossberg wrote his review, the Mozy application software only ran under Windows XP. Now it also supports Windows 2000 and Vista and they have Mac software in beta testing. This is all too new for me to trust it with something as important as file backups.

Mr. Mossberg's description of the Web-based interface failed to point out that it can't be used for making backups, only for restoring files. As he said, Mozy charges extra for each additional computer that you back up from. The online backup service that I use, which I'm not going to mention both because it's not perfect and this blog is not an ad, allows me to back up files from an unlimited number of computers using their Web interface. This should be a prerequisite for any online storage service you may be considering.

Big sin

Mozy's biggest sin wasn't mentioned in any of the reviews. (Doesn't anyone read the fine print?)

An obvious reason for making backups is to be protected from accidentally deleting files. If your fingers slip while typing, you can wipe out dozens of files and not realize it. Or someone else using your computer might delete them. Or there may be a glitch in the file system and Windows loses track of some files.

If you delete a file by accident and don't notice it, Mozy will delete the backups of the file too. I kid you not.

This is a quote from Mozy.com (as of July 29, 2007): "If you delete the working copy on your machine and then run a backup, Mozy will assume that you no longer need a backup copy, since you got rid of the working copy, and will mark the file to be removed from our system in 30 days...After 30 days, you cannot get these files back."

Pogue made a bad thing seem like a good thing when he wrote: "You can view 30 days' worth of backups, too--a feature that prevents you from deleting a file from your PC accidentally and then finding its deletion mirrored in your latest backup." Mr. Pogue is assuming both that you know a file was deleted by accident and that you try to recover it within 30 days. But if you are not aware that a file is missing until 31 days after it disappeared, it's gone. With my online backup company I could accidentally delete a file, not know about it for years and still be able to recover the last backed-up copy.

Perhaps you know someone who has had to reinstall Windows? Or had their laptop computer stolen? With Mozy there is a chance it may treat missing files as being deleted on purpose, and delete the backups in 30 days. I have no idea how likely this is, but if something can go wrong, it will. And again, there's that issue of relatively new version 1 software to consider.

Why does Mozy do something that seems so wrong? I think I know.

In their free service Mozy offers 2GB of storage space to anyone who feels like asking for it. The less space someone uses, the better it is for them. In their paid service, Mozy offers unlimited storage for $55 per year. Here, too, the less space a customer uses the better it is for Mozy. In this context, it makes sense for them to delete as many files as possible. It's a natural outgrowth of their business model.

In contrast, Mozy's competitors charge more as their customers use more storage space. It's reasonable to assume that these companies make more money the more data they are storing. Thus, they are not motivated to delete files. In my opinion, you're better off using a company with this business model.

Mozy customers are, in effect, trying to get something for nothing with unlimited storage for only $55 per year. It's too good to be true.

I'm far from done. More tomorrow...

Update. February 9, 2008. In an attempt to generate commissions someone made a comment to this article suggesting that mozyonlinebackup.com offered impartial reviews. It does not. The site is run by John Pontillo of Fishkill, New York. That the links to Mozy look like
http://www.mozy.com/?ref=99999999&kbid=99999&m=9&i=99
is a giveaway of the true purpose of the site - generating commissions.

See a summary of all my Defensive Computing postings.

Most of us have personal computer questions and it's not too hard to get answers. What is hard though, is getting an answer from someone qualified, thoughtful and reasoned. And a constant stream of good answers, for free, is too much to hope for.

Unless you know about Leo.

At his ask-leo.com web site, Leo Notenboom answers computer questions from anyone. Each week he answers a handful of questions, and, if you subscribe to his free newsletter, you get a weekly email with the current weeks questions. He can't answer every one, but he tries his best.

To illustrate, here are some recently asked and answered questions:

• I'm being notified of an intrusion attempt, what should I do?
• Where can I download Windows XP?
• Why can't I connect with a 169.254.x.x IP address?
• How do I translate a URL to an IP address?
• What is thumbs.db, and can I delete it?
• How do I change the icon of a desktop shortcut?
• Why can't I access the Documents and Settings or Local Settings folders in Windows Vista?

Computer nerds don't really have an equivalent of the board certification that doctors do. Still, Mr. Notenboom previously worked for Microsoft, which should count for something. And as they say, it takes one to know one, so trust me, Leo is more than qualified to answer your tech questions. Maybe he already has.

System Restore is a feature of Windows XP that periodically backs up the Windows system folders. It does this in case some piece of software is not doing something today that it was doing yesterday. In that event, you can restore the latest System Restore backup and hopefully fix things.

Microsoft refers to System Restore backups as "restore points". They reside on the C disk in a folder Windows tries to keep hidden.

System Restore runs silently in the background, thus, you can use a Windows XP machine for years and not be aware of its existence - which is both good and bad.

Tip One

The bad part leads to the first tip - every now and then make a restore point manually, just to be sure you can (instructions for doing so are below). There are three reasons for this.

First, under some conditions, System Restore will purposely turn itself off and not tell you that it's no longer running. Therefore, just before you manually make a restore point, check that System Restore has made some recent restore points. You do this by starting the restore procedure, then browsing the calendar of previous restore points without actually restoring anything. I would feel reasonably safe with one restore point a week.

Second, the rules for when System Restore makes a restore point are numerous and confusing. Thus it can be functioning within normal parameters but still go weeks without making a restore point.

Finally, I've seen System Restore break (as opposed to turning itself off by design). That is, when I tried to manually make a restore point it failed. It's better to know that this has happened than not know.

There is no one right answer for how often to manually make a restore point. I'd suggest monthly as a starting point, more often if the computer is very important, less often if not. The process of making a restore point takes about 10 seconds.

Tip Two

Always make a restore point before installing new software. Some software makes restore points as part of the installation process, but not all. Better safe than sorry. In addition to new software, also make a restore point before installing a new version of existing software and prior to installing bug fixes (a.k.a. patches, updates). And, leading to the next tip, make a restore point before letting antivirus or antispyware software remove something malicious.

Tip Three

Once upon a time I was working on a Windows XP machine that was infected with lots of malicious software (viruses, trojans, adware, spyware, etc.). When I got the machine, infected though it was, Windows was able to boot. At some point though, the cleanup process got too aggressive.

Something I did in removing the malware prevented Windows from fully booting. It got to the point of displaying the desktop wallpaper, but that was about it. The desktop icons never appeared and none of the auto-started applications ran. Even in safe mode, Windows got to the same halfway point in the boot process and stopped. I had followed my own advice and made a recent restore point, but how to restore to it?

The third tip is that System Restore can be used even in this case. Start the machine and use the F8 key to invoke the "Windows Advanced Options menu" just as if you were going into safe mode. Then chose the option to boot to "Safe Mode with Command Prompt". This disables more of Windows than regular Safe Mode does. In my case, it disabled the broken part of Windows and the machine was able to boot to a command prompt.

From the command prompt, you can run System Restore with this command:

  c:\windows\system32\restore\rstrui.exe

This invokes the normal System Restore application (not a text mode version), except there is no option to make a restore point. All you can do in Safe Mode or Safe Mode with Command Prompt is restore previously taken restore points. Pick the most recent restore point and hopefully your problem will disappear. In my case it did, Windows was able to boot after restoring the latest restore point. If not, try an earlier restore point.

Tip Four

The last tip is simply to try booting to "Safe Mode with Command Prompt" now, while everything is working correctly. Consider it a dress rehearsal.

Invoking

With Windows XP running, System Restore is invoked from the Start button with:

  Start -> Programs -> Accessories -> System Tools -> System Restore

You can make System Restore easier to find by creating a shortcut to it on the desktop. When hovering over System Restore in the last step above, right click instead of left clicking and then "Send To" -> "Desktop (create shortcut)". Another way is to navigate to this folder:

  c:\windows\system32\restore\

and right click on file rstrui.exe. Here too, send it to the desktop.

Note: The directory where file rstrui.exe lives is, technically speaking, the system root folder. Normally the system root is "c:\windows", but this is not mandatory. To be 100% sure, do Start -> Run and in the box enter "%SystemRoot%" this will open Windows Explorer at the system root folder.

Sometimes when invoking "Safe Mode with Command Prompt" Windows asks you to log in, sometimes not. If prompted, log in as as a user that is a member of the Administrators group. The Windows userid you normally use may work fine. If not, try logging in as user Administrator with a blank password.

Update: For more on System Restore see No Restore Point for you December 28, 2007.

See a summary of all my Defensive Computing postings.

In the July 12th edition of the Wall Street Journal, Walter Mossberg reviewed two new laptop computers, the Dell M1330 and the Toshiba Portege R500. In describing the R500 he said:

"The screen is lit by LEDs instead of by traditional lamps.
That makes for more brightness and saves power."

Raise your hand if you are familiar with the use of LEDs as a light source in laptop computers.

I don't see many hands. Mine isn't raised either.

They seem to be getting popular, just last month Apple started selling their first laptop computer with LED backlighting. The Sony VAIO TX line of laptops uses LEDs as does their TZ line, due to be released very soon. Sony too, claims that LEDs offer increased brightness and decreased power consumption. In addition, they claim that their LED lit screen offers better colors.

Can LEDs really make laptop screens brighter, consume less power and offer better colors?

For those of us who didn't raise our hands, I turned to screen and monitor expert Alfred Poor for advice. For more than 20 years Alfred wrote for PC Magazine, and was their first Lead Analyst for Business Displays. He is a member of the Society for Information Display and the editor and publisher of HDTV Almanac, a web site with news and commentary about HDTV and related topics.

Starting at the beginning, Alfred explained that the liquid crystals in an LCD panel/monitor don't emit light themselves [insert your own dilithium joke here]. Rather "the molecules move in response to electrical fields, and are used as a shutter to block the light." I was surprised how inefficient the technology is. An LCD screen blocks 95% of the backlight, even when it's showing a full white screen.

Traditionally, Alfred said, the backlight source behind the crystals have been cold-cathode fluorescent lamps (CCFL). The use of LEDs in laptop screens is relatively new. According to Alfred, LEDs "already are commonplace in mobile devices such as GPS receivers, cell phones, and PDAs ... the first desktop monitors probably appeared within the past couple of years. Sony had an LCD TV with LED backlights a couple of years ago. I expect that laptops were the last to get the technology."

Cost

Since none of the companies offering LED backlit screens said anything about cost, it's reasonable to assume that LEDs are more expensive than CCFLs.

The M1330 comes with either a CCFL or LED lit screen, so it makes for a handy comparison of the two technologies. The M1330 costs $150 more with the LED lit screen.

With Sony, Toshiba and Apple, the cost of the LED screen is a hidden component of the total price. But these machines aren't cheap. As of July 22nd, the least expensive pre-configured Toshiba Portege R500 was $1,999 and the Sony TZ line started at $2,199.99 (think of it as $2,200). The 15.4 inch Macbook Pro started at $1,999.

Thin and Light

Toshiba claims that in one configuration the Portege R500 is "...the world's thinnest widescreen 12.1 inch notebook PC with an integrated DVD-SuperMulti drive..." Dell claims their M1330 laptop with the optional LED screen is the thinnest laptop computer equipped with a 13.3 inch screen. The Sony VAIO TZ machines are less than an inch thick, but only if measured at the narrowest point. At the highest point, they are 1.17 inches.

Alfred confirmed that LEDs are indeed thinner and therefore the screens can be made thinner. And, they weigh less than cold-cathode fluorescent lamps.

We can see this in the M1330. According to Dell, the LED display "starts at 3.97lbs and is 0.87 inches thick compared to the standard display which starts at 4.28lbs and is 0.97 inches thick." The difference in weight and thickness seem, to me, to be small, but, I suppose if you frequently carry a laptop computer, then perhaps every little bit helps.

Power

Mr. Mossberg gives the impression that by their very nature LEDs save power. Not true, according to our expert. Alfred pointed out that "At present LEDs generally draw more power and produce more heat than CCFL designs." Heat is a problem for all personal computers. It's more of an issue with laptops and still more important in ultraportable models where everything is so closely packed together.

So what is the basis for the claimed power savings? It turns out that the number of LEDs in a screen varies. If the number is low enough, less power is needed and less heat is generated. With a small enough number of LEDs, Alfred said you can "probably save power compared with a CCFL design. This can be used to give either a longer battery life, or to reduce the battery weight and thus get a lighter weight design overall."

I couldn't find anything from Sony, Toshiba or Apple about the number of LEDs in their screens. But in describing the M1330 Dell says "Our optional LED display uses 32 tiny, white LEDs ..." According to Alfred, "32 is a relatively high number for a small screen. Some large HDTV panels using high brightness LEDs could use that count or less for a panel with 8 or 10 times the surface area."

So, if the relatively high number of LEDs means increased heat and no power savings, why does Dell use so many? Alfred explains that LED screens "need a sophisticated lightpipe and diffuser to spread the light evenly behind the LCD panel. The fewer LEDs you use, the more difficult the diffusion process becomes."

Brightness

As to whether LEDs are brighter, Toshiba claims this is true, but offers no specific numbers. Sony claims "incredibly high brightness levels" and the specs for the screen list it at 11.1 candelas (trust me, you don't want to know the exact definition of a candela). The point is that Sony does not offer the candela ratings for their CCFL screens as a point of comparison.

The owners manual for the Dell M1330 shows the LED panel to be 36% brighter than the CCFL panel. Specifically the luminance of the LED screen is 300 cd/m² vs. 220 cd/m² for CCFL (and no, I can't explain what cd/m² means).

Better Color

Sony is the most aggressive in making claims about the better colors in their LED screens, using the terms "brilliant", "amplified" and "true-to-life" to describe them. Toshiba says that indoors, "the LED backlit display produces rich color saturation." I couldn't find anything from Dell that mentioned better colors. Alfred said it is possible that "LEDs can offer better color than CCFL, though advances in CCFL phosphor technology are rapidly diminishing this advantage."

Glossy vs. Matte finish

LED backlighting, being in the back, can be used with screens whose front has either a glossy or matte finish. A glossy screen suffers from glare, but produces more vibrant colors. Each laptop vendor has their own marketing term for glossy screens, Apple is the only company I've seen that actually uses the word glossy. A matte finish may be described as anti-glare or anti-reflective.

The Sony TX and TZ laptops have a matte finish. At the Apple online store you can chose either a glossy or matte finish when you order the 15 inch LED backlit Macbook Pro. I can't be sure about the other laptops because the claims of better colors could be either based on the LED backlighting or the glossy screen or both.

Lifespan

I didn't see any marketing material from a laptop manufacturer that mentioned the expected lifespan of LEDs vs. CCFLs. But, a company that manufacturers LEDs did claim they last longer than CCFLs. When I ran this by Alfred, he said:

The difference is probably not important, but yes, CCFLs don't last as long. Even more significant is that their output decreases over time. End of life is when they are half as bright. LEDs are solid state devices, and "fall off the cliff" in failure mode; in other words, they keep working like when they were new until they stop working. Most people aren't going to keep their notebooks long enough for the CCFL aging to show any difference.

Market Share

Alfred estimates the market share of LEDs at less than five percent, but he expects them to become more common as costs come down. DigiTimes reports that laptop and panel vendors expect that LEDs will be used in about 7% of laptop screens next year (See Nearly 100% of 10-inch-and-smaller LCD panels using LED backlight by Susie Pan and Emily Chuang, July 23, 2007). They estimate that LEDs will be used in 3-5% of laptop computers this year.

To date, LEDs have been popular mostly in smaller displays. In part this is because smaller screens use fewer LEDs which lowers the price differential over CCFL. The DigiTimes article reports that most LCD screens 10 inches and under use LED backlighting. The Sony TX and TZ screens are 11.1 inches, the Toshiba R500 screen is 12.1 inches and the Dell M1330 LED screen is 13.3 inches. The Apple Macbook Pro has the only available 15 inch screen using LEDs, but Apple appears to be having supply problems with them.

Alfred also mentioned that "environmental concerns about heavy metals in the CCFLs" may help to popularize LEDs. Apple seems to be the only laptop vendor using environmental concerns in their marketing. They tout their LED lit screens as being "mercury-free" and the company has long term plans to eliminate mercury from all their products.

Finally, I wondered why Dell and Sony mentioned that the LEDs they use are white. Alfred pointed out that some LED backlights use red, green, and blue, and mix the colors in the diffuser. I didn't bother asking what a diffuser is.

Note: You can hear both Alfred Poor and myself, weekly, on the Personal Computer Radio Show. The show hosts, Joe King and Hank Kee, have been broadcasting out of WBAI in New York City for the last 23 years.

Update July 29, 2007: Updated with a direct comparison between the brightness rating of the two screens offered by Dell for the M1330 (from the Owners Manual).

Recently someone brought me a non-functional laptop computer. The problem turned out to be a dead hard disk. As far as I could tell, the platters inside weren't even spinning.

The laptop owner needed the machine fixed as soon as possible, so he went to the local Best Buy with a printout I gave him from the Best Buy web site for a particular hard disk model. I had reviewed all the laptop hard drives in stock in that particular store and chose one with a low capacity, as his needs were modest, and a long warranty.

Despite the claims of the web site, Best Buy did not have that particular hard drive in stock.

The salesperson suggested another hard drive, priced a couple dollars above the original one. Can you guess where this story is going? Hint: the computer in question was about four years old.

Best Buy sold him a SATA hard drive.

Until recently all hard drives in personal computers used an IDE (also known as ATA) connection to the motherboard. Servers often used a SCSI connection, but IDE was the standard for personal computers. In the last year or two, the new SATA connection standard has become very popular.

The Best Buy salesperson didn't bother looking at the hard drive I suggested to see if it was IDE or SATA. They didn't bother asking how old the laptop computer was. Anyone selling hard drives for computers should know to ask if the computer accepts IDE or SATA. And any four year old laptop is using IDE.

The NOD32 antivirus program from ESET has its share of enthusiasts. After a long, detailed review of the field, Scot Finnie in February called it the best antivirus product of 2007.

Based on Mr. Finnie's reviews and recommendation, I've been installing NOD32 on the computers of some of my clients. I've also lived with it a bit on one of my computers and had no major gripes.

Until yesterday.

NOD32 is using 88% of the CPU after having been shut down. Click for full-size image.

I was about to run Microsoft Update on a Windows XP machine for the third or fourth time, and was getting tired of waiting for it complete. So this time, I turned off ("Quit") NOD32 beforehand.

It didn't seem to make much of a difference, as Microsoft Update still maxed out the CPU while checking for new patches and seemed to take forever to complete.

But while I was waiting, I took a look at the system using Process Explorer, a great free program, now from Microsoft but formerly from Sysinternals. Surprise, surprise. NOD32 was using 88 percent of the CPU cycles. Despite the disappearance of the system tray icon, it never really shut down.

In the screen shot above (click for a full-size image), the highlighted line is nod32krn.exe, and you can see from the CPU History that it has been using a good portion of the processor horsepower.

NOD32 version details. Click for full size image.

I've been down this road before. This isn't the first time the user interface of an application says that it is not running but the underlying Windows service is still running (in Windows XP: Control Panel -> Administrative Tools -> Services). Windows Update is like this. So, too, is the Windows Security Center.

But NOD32 won't let you shut down its Windows service. The Stop option is disabled. I've seen enough episodes of ''Star Trek'' to know how important a manual override is. NOD32 doesn't have a manual override.

The version of NOD32 in question is the current version, 2.70. Click on the screen shot at the right to see the full details on the version of NOD32 being used at the time.

---

UPDATE (July 17, 2007)

Randy Abrams, the Director of Technical Education for ESET, the company behind NOD32, explained why NOD32 only partially shuts down.

"As for the inability to completely shut down NOD32, that is necessitated by the nature of security software and the threats we face. NOD32 implements technologies designed to prevent malicious software from disabling it. While NOD32 offers the user the ability to partially turn off NOD32 services, in order to allow the user to completely do so we would have to allow malware to easily disable NOD32. Additionally, the low level at which anti-virus software runs means that system stability may be compromised if it is completely removed - making it potentially dangerous to completely remove the software without a reboot. The anti-stealth technology in NOD32 that is designed to be able to detect active rootkits must operate at a system level at least as low as the rootkits it is detecting."

And he goes on to explain that NOD32 can be totally shutdown after a reboot:

"To temporarily disable NOD32 without uninstalling it on a Windows XP System, I would recommend using MSConfig and temporarily disabling the startup item NOD32KUI and the service NOD32 Kernel Service.

Although you can't stop the NOD32 Kernel Service, you can change it from the normal startup mode of Automatic to Manual or Disabled. Addressing the CPU usage observed with NOD32 half shut-down Mr. Abrams says:

"Typically when NOD32 is disabled the resource consumption will go down to about zero. There can be very strange cases where the exact combination of hardware and software create conflicts. These conflicts can be a real bear to track down."

Being a programmer, I feel his pain. And NOD32 in normal usage is not a resource hog at all.

I asked Mr. Abrams about other defensive software (antivirus, antispyware, firewalls and the like) that asks for confirmation from a human being when it gets a request to shut down. On this point he said:

"There are definitely a variety of approaches that can be taken. Each will have trade-offs in terms of security implications. Malware that can shut down a security program can also intercept messages. It is a calculated risk. "

And, on a lighter note, Mr. Abrams adds:

"Remember, in Star Trek the ultimate manual override still required a senior officer's verbal confirmation and was not valid for all starships (we hope). Ultimately, NOD32 can be uninstalled without difficulty, but we wouldn't want any random Trible (hey, they are great at replication) to be able to come along and disable every copy of NOD32."

You've got to love a company with a sense of humor. :-)

Finally, let me put this in perspective. NOD32 has been a well reviewed product, which motivated me to try it in the first place. At my computergripes.com site I often gripe about software that I continue to use and recommend. Nothing's perfect. But you'll never see me griping about, for example, Microsoft's antivirus product because it has been so poorly reviewed, I won't bother with it.

My previous posting (Don't get burned by RAID Zero) on RAID Level Zero was a warning - both that it can be dangerous and that you may inadvertently be using it.

To make an analogy, consider the old joke regarding the purchase of a yacht. The potential buyer asks how much the yacht costs and the seller responds "If you have to ask, you can't afford it." In the current context: if you don't know what RAID Zero is, you shouldn't be using it.

But, the devil is in the details.

The danger with Raid Zero lies in the fact that every file is split between two hard disks and if either fails, you lose all your data. Thus, despite some reader comments to the first posting, your odds of being victimized by a hard disk failure are twice those of someone using a single hard disk. Like a lottery drawing, you have two balls in the hopper.

The hardware device that keeps track of where to store each half of a file is called a controller. If this controller fails, you again lose all your data, even though each hard disk may be alive and well. Your data is there, but without a road map, it can't be found.

A reader disagreed, saying that a Raid Zero controller can simply be swapped out for a new one and your data is not lost. This is not the case.

For one, external hard drives, whether they have one or two internal disks, are not meant to be user serviced. And, it turns out all Raid Level Zero controllers are not the same.

Ontrack Data Recovery

For help with the issue of replacing a RAID Zero controller, I turned to a company famous for being world class experts in hard disks - Ontrack Data Recovery.

If you are not familiar with them, Ontrack is a vendor of last resort. That is, when all else fails and you absolutely must recover the files on a malfunctioning hard disk, call Ontrack. And, to repeat the joke above, if you have to ask how much their services cost, you're data files are not that important.

Jeff Pederson, Manager of Data Recovery Operations for Ontrack Data Recovery, weighed in on the issue of replacing one RAID Zero controller with another:

It's fair to say, that if the RAID Zero controller fails, you're in deep trouble.

This is in stark contrast to hard disks connected to normal ordinary controllers, be they IDE/ATA or SATA. These controllers do indeed all function in the same way and, should one fail, it's a fairly simple thing to connect a hard disk to another one.

Scott Meuller

In the original posting, I mentioned a failed LaCie external hard drive with two internal hard disks, configured as RAID Zero. This was the first time I'd run across an external hard drive, being sold as a single unit (as opposed to a NAS device), with two internal hard disks. Scott Meuller, who was nice enough to add his thoughts on the subject, has been warning people about problems with this design all along (see Got a BIG drive? Then where do you keep the other two?). Quoting:

"... while their designs and shortcomings are obvious to a professional, virtually none of the published product reviews I've seen point out the multiple internal drive/RAID 0 configuration or the potential ramifications."

As for the failure of the RAID Zero controller in one of these units, Scott says it might "be possible to swap the otherwise standard internal drives over to another identical unit in order to restore array functionality (recover the data)."

When it comes to PC hardware, Scott Meuller literally wrote the book on it. Hordes of techies learned the ins and outs of hardware from his line of Upgrading and Repairing PCs books. If he isn't sure how to deal with this problem, it's not one you want to be faced with.

Never mind, that to have an "identical unit", you likely have to have purchased both at the same time.

Other Reader Comments

Many comments on the initial posting mentioned backups as a cure for data loss from a hard disk failure, RAID or no RAID. There will be many postings on this blog in the near future about backing up data on a computer. It's inherent to Defensive Computing.

Thanks to ajhoughton for helping to make my point.

To MC: what is LDO?

Update: July 15, 2007. While browsing the web site of Gateway Computers today, I happened to notice that they offer RAID Zero as an optional feature on the FX530XG computer. Quoting Gateway: "Experience pure power with optional RAID 0 with SATA II/300 drive support for improved performance."

---

• Original posting: Don't get burned by RAID Zero
• Comments on the original posting

---