March 4, 2007.  I've been swearing at Microsoft again (still).  As with everything involving that outfit, it's too complicated to explain in detail.  It started with my discovery that, despite having purchased last June a brand-new computer with Windows XP Media Edition (Service Pack 2 installed), I suddenly discovered that no updates or patches have been installing since last July.  Although I had "automatic update" enabled, nothing was getting into my computer.

I tried running updates manually and kept getting, "Error Ox80072EFD.  The website has encountered a problem and cannot display the page you are trying to view."  Funny thing – all sorts of spam, viruses, spyware, and adware can get through Microsoft's firewalls, but I can't access their own website that provudes security patches and updates.  After trying all of the usual devices, such as temporarily disabling antivirus and other safeguards, I found a "Guided Help" that was supposed to run automatically and fix "Error Ox80072EFD."  I ran it twice – no luck.  Finally, I found an involved  set of instructions (three pages worth) to fix the error.  That worked.

How many users would have said, "To hell with it"?  When an automated process that is supposedly built into the operating system doesn't run, one shouldn't have to jump through a million hoops to fix it.

Once it did run, I found that I had missed about 45 updates and patches.  Interestingly enough, one of these was a patch identified as something that might be needed if update refuses to run.  Hey, geniuses, if update isn't running, we aren't going to get the patch to make it run.  Of course, after I downloaded and installed the updates, I had to restart my computer, whereupon I was told that I needed to install the updates.  Of course, when I tried, they wouldn't install because they were already there (as I determined by checking the history of installed updates).

I think Microsoft has a lot of people whose specialty is to have the right hand do what the left hand has already done, leading to the possibility that the right hand may not do what it's supposed to do because it thinks the left hand has done it.  Therefore, it releases a constant flow of patches to correct its own errors and omissions – only it labels them "security patches" to make us believe that they're all caused by outside hackers.  Some may be, but I'm sure that the problems are frequently generated by MS's own programmers.  The company is its own worst enemy, and if it hadn't long ago established a virtual software monopoly, it would be in deep trouble today.

Unfortunately, though other companies (and sometimes much more enlightened companies) are beginning to erods some of Microsoft's hegemony, I don't foresee any funeral services for Microsoft or its Windows operating system (which it essentially stole from Apple years ago).  Sure, people aren't scurrying out to buy Vista; most of us are sticking with XP, which we now know well, warts and all.  We've upgraded and patched and service-packed it like the loyal slaves of MS that we have become, and we don't want to go through that again.

However, Microsoft has the market clout and the allegiance of just about every computer manufacturer and retailer, outside the still small Macintosh family.  When Vista was launched, virtually every store that sold computers released a glossy brochure hyping the new operating system.  If you buy a computer tomorrow, you'll get Vista with it, whether you want it or not.  And, two or three years from now, if you haven't bought a new computer and are still running XP, Microsoft won't offer any support for it.  At Microsoft, the line between promotion and arm-twisting doesn't exist.

March 8, 2007.  Viewers may see some strange stuff here (and elsewhere on this site).  The host has decided to use a new editing program, and I'm already finding bugs.  Maybe they aren't bugs; maybe I just don't know how to use the thing.

I guess I really am an old poop.  The site hosts claim that the new editing tool is superior to what we had before, and I have noticed a few new capabilities.  However, I hate change, especially when something has been working well for years.  Small improvements aren't, in my mind, justification for learning a whole new process.

In my opinion, it's the Microsoft Syndrome all over again.  One has to learn an entirely new and different program just for the sake of adding some bells and whistles to the old one.  I'm only sort of patient, not very patient.  Time will tell whether it's worth the hassle.  Of course, what choice do I have?  The geeks are in command.

March 9, 2007.  Man, they really messed me up!  I made one small change on my homepage, and everything went flying.  I have just spent about three hours cleaning up the mess.  If this new editing tool is an improvement, I'm the Queen of England.

March 10, 2007.  I have just spent the better part of two days redoing my homepage, removing the old one, and replacing it with one created in the new editing tool.  It is probably cleaner, with fewer unwanted codes, but this was a time-consuming chore that I would rather not have had to do.  Anyway, that is history, so I'll drop it.

As I mentioned previously, we in most of the US are shifting to Daylight Savings Time tonight, much sooner than has been the case in the past.

My clever wife observed that our VCR and DVD recorders, which automatically make the shift based on the old schedule, will be confused.  If we change their clocks manually tonight, they will change them again on the date when we formerly changed times.  Luckily, we found in the menu a way to disable the automatic shift, so we'll just change them manually tonight.  However, I imagine that some people will be baffled about why their VCRs or DVD recorders won't adjust for the time change tonight and even more baffled when they do three weeks from now.  The answer is simple, folks:  Those machines have no way of knowing that the world around them has changed since they were manufactured and programmed.

I've always had mixed emotions about Daylight Saving Time.  On one hand, I'm a "night person"; I enjoy the darkness, the shadows, and the subtle play of moonlight and artificial light in the otherwise dark world.  Although I don't like it to be dark when I get up in the morning, I rarely get up that early anyway.  I'm not a morning person and have a T-shirt that reads, "Good Morning Is an Oxymoron."  On the other hand, I'm old enough that my night vision for driving is getting quite bad.  I won't drive on unfamiliar roads at night if I can avoid it; even when I'm making my familiar rounds, it's nice to have the extra daylight hour in the evening.

Will we save significantly on energy as a result of this change?  I doubt it.  We're a society that functions pretty much twenty-four hours a day.  What we gain by not having to use artificial lighting in the evening will be lost by having to use it in the morning – except in our household where anyone who gets up before 9 a.m. is considered a bit daft.

March 15, 2007.  I haven't any idea what made me think of this, but a good day is when everything works, and nothing breaks.  As with most middle-class American households, ours contains many machines.  (I'll classify as "machines" everything from the electric razor to the computer, the water heater to the TV set.)  I haven't counted, but I guess that, if I added up all our gadgets and their components, we have more than fifty such things, not counting light fixtures, that could decide not to work at any time.

If we added up all the time we spend fixing or adjusting the machines that we have for "convenience," I wonder how many days of our lives are spent in this activity.  Add the time setting them up in the first place and the time we spend replacing them, and I'll bet that the average adult spends at least a year on such activities.

I suppose the time spent is worth it.  We certainly cut down on a lot of labor time by having washers and dryers, though I'm not convinced that using a dishwasher is much of a savings over washing dishes by hand (which is one reason we don't have one).  Microwaves save a lot of cooking time if you aren't a gourmet, which I am not.  Even the few minutes saved by using an electric razor or a few seconds saved by using an electric can opener can add up.  Certainly, those of us with computers are saving some time by shopping or doing business online or by sending e-mails instead of mailing letters.

However, time is a constant, and, no matter what we do, we never have enough of it.  As we have invented "time-saving" devices, we have come to expect ourselves and others to do more in a constant block of time.  Furthermore, if we gain some "free time" – a silly phrase since time is either always or never free, depending on how we look at it – we tend to spend this time diddling with or being entertained by machines.  So if one or more machines breaks down in a given day, we're having a bad day.

I have to wonder:  Have we controlled our world by creating machines, or have the machines we've created controlled us?