Ed Bott

In practical terms, this announcement won’t change much, but from a symbolic point of view it’s very big news indeed:

Microsoft quietly extends consumer support for Windows 7, Vista

Microsoft is updating the Support Lifecycle policy for Windows desktop operating systems, including Windows XP, Windows Vista and Windows 7.

The update will provide a more consistent and predictable experience for customers using Microsoft Windows operating systems across OEM, consumer and business editions.

Microsoft still requires that customers have the most current Service Pack installed in order to continue to receive updates.

Through this update, customers who remain on the most current supported service pack will be eligible to receive both Mainstream and Extended Support, for a total of 10 years.

Don’t confuse the support lifecycle with the sales lifecycle, though. You can’t buy Windows XP or Windows Vista today, even though they’re still supported. And as I explain in the linked post, the clock begins ticking for Windows 7 as soon as Windows 8 is released. OEMs will be able to sell Windows 7 with new PCs for exactly two years after Windows 8 is released, at which point all sales stop.

Microsoft’s unveiling of the Windows 8 logo yesterday drew mixed reactions, based mostly on a single two-dimensional depiction.

Now, the company that designed the logo, Pentagram, has released more details about the design process:

New Work: Microsoft Windows 8

[Paula] Scher and her team created a complete system based on the idea of perspective. The designers completed motion studies to demonstrate the transformation of the flag shape into a window shape, to show that they weren’t that far apart and would be an easy and elegant transition for the brand. (Marks that fit into this perspective have been created for other Microsoft brands and programs, but have not yet been implemented.)

Here’s a video showing the animation:

Windows 8 Transparency from Pentagram on Vimeo.

Let’s see if the motion changes any minds.

This infographic appeared in the Wall Street Journal yesterday.

Consumption of tissue, including toilet paper, has now surpassed newsprint use in the U.S.

Make your own jokes in the comments.

If you plug the phrase remove tracking cookies into Google Search, a post I wrote nearly seven years ago comes up as one of the top results.

That 2005 post, titled How to completely eliminate tracking cookies, is woefully out of date. (How outdated is it? It contains instructions for Firefox 1.0.)

And yet that post is still one of the most popular I’ve ever written.

The gist of those instructions, which I have also included in every Windows book I have written for the past decade, is the recommendation that Internet users allow first-party cookies and block third-party cookies, making exceptions where necessary. This is an industry-standard, well-known method for expressing your privacy preferences, and it has worked for years and years.

The fact that so many people search for and find this page is a testament to the desire of so many people to have some control over their online privacy. They believe—rightly, in my opinion—that they should have a say in whether and how they are tracked as they move around the Internet.

And yet that task has become more difficult in recent years, when it should be getting easier.

Today’s case in point is Google’s transparent attempt to do an end run around user privacy concerns for customers who browse the web on Apple-branded devices running iOS and mobile Safari.

You can read all about the issue in this post by Peter Eckersley, Rainey Reitman, and Lee Tien  at the Electronic Frontier Foundation:

Google Circumvents Safari Privacy Protections – This is Why We Need Do Not Track

The Safari and iOS browsers have a useful privacy feature: they automatically reject third-party tracking cookies unless a user actively interacts with a widget or clicks on the third party’s ads. This is a big step up from the default settings on most browsers. Advertisers typically use tracking cookies to create an invisible record of your online browsing habits, and large advertisers can track you across huge swaths of the web. Safari offers some protection against this type of passive tracking: it specifically prevents a site from setting cookies unless those cookies are from a domain name that you have visited or interacted with directly.

As Google engineers were building the system for passing facts like "your friend Suzy +1′ed this ad" from google.com to doubleclick.net, they would have likely realized that Safari was stopping them from linking this data using third-party DoubleClick cookies. So it appears they added special JavaScript code that tricked Safari into thinking the user was interacting with DoubleClick,2 causing Safari to allow the cookies that would facilitate social personalization (and perhaps, at some point, other forms of pseudonymous behavioral targeting). This was a small hole in Safari’s privacy protections.

Unfortunately, that had the side effect of completely undoing all of Safari’s protections against doubleclick.net. It caused Safari to allow other DoubleClick cookies, and especially the main "id" tracking cookie that Safari normally blocked. Like a balloon popped with a pinprick, all of Safari’s protections against DoubleClick were gone.

This was not just some random “oops” moment. As a footnote in the EFF post notes, “The code was … a ‘hidden form submission’, contained in a DoubleClick iframe.” In effect, Google coded its ads so that it appeared as though the person visiting that page had submitted an invisible form to Google. “This code was only sent to Apple’s browsers,” the EFF continues. Security researcher Jonathan Mayer, who identified the issue first, “tested 400 user-agent strings, and found that only Safari received the JavaScript that performed hidden form submissions.”

In other words, this was deliberate.

And as if to make itself look even more guilty, Google has tried to erase some incriminating language it posted online. As CNET’s Elinor Mills notes:

Meanwhile, Google’s Chrome team offers an Advertising Cookie Opt-Out Plugin that lets people do exactly what Safari’s default setting provides – block third-party cookies. Oddly, the instructions for confirming the default settings in Safari on that page were removed as the Wall Street Journal was preparing its news report. This is at the core of a Consumer Watchdog complaint filed with the FTC today that accuses Google of unfair and deceptive practices.

This is why major advertising and tracking companies—and Google is the biggest of them all—cannot and should not be trusted to regulate themselves.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have an old blog post to update.

Update: Google is employing a different, equally underhanded tactic to work around default privacy protections in Internet Explorer as well. I have removed Google’s tracking pixel from this site.

Microsoft, September 2011:

Apple, February 2012:

I guess the hyphen makes it OK. What I find most astounding is that in two full pages of promotional material, Apple never once uses the word revolutionary. At the old Apple, everything was revolutionary.

Both Microsoft and Apple call their current releases Developer Previews:

Microsoft will release its Consumer Preview on February 29.

You’ll be able to pay $29 for the Mountain Lion Consumer Preview (OS X 10.8.0) later this summer. Apple has not announced a timetable for release of the final, production-quality OS X Mountain Lion (10.8.2).

Update for wannabe grammarians who think Apple is right to use a hyphen. Uh, no.

From the AP Stylebook:

When Not to Use a Hyphen

Prefixes. The following prefixes are not usually hyphenated: "anti-, bi-, co-, contra-, counter-, de-, extra-, infra-, inter-, intra-, micro-, mid-, multi-, non-, over-, peri-, post-, pre-, pro-, proto-, pseudo-, re-, semi-, sub-, super-, supra-, trans-, tri-, ultra-, un-, under-, and whole-."

And from the Chicago Manual of Style (PDF):

Words Formed with Prefixes

Compounds formed with prefixes are normally closed, whether they are nouns, verbs, adjectives, or adverbs.

[…]

re – reedit, reunify, reproposition

Manuals of style? Yes, I know them.

No surprise. This is appropriately Metro-y:

The design logic is all explained on the Windows Team Blog: Redesigning the Windows Logo.

The post includes a brief trip down memory lane. (Spoiler: the Windows logo used to be a window, then it turned into a flag, now it’s a window again!)

Microsoft says its goal was “for the new logo to be humble, yet confident. Welcoming you in with a slight tilt in perspective and when you change your color, the logo changes to reflect you.”

Feels kind of Scandinavian to me.