Just between you and me, I’ve heard that one could obtain copies of Windows 7, including builds newer than the public betas, from some not-so-sanctioned sources. Of course I would know very little about how this works, but I understand that there is a process of verifying the integrity of files to ensure files are as described and have not been tampered with, however not everyone does this.

Leading up to the inevitable leak of the Windows 7 RTM build like a bottle of champagne shaken once too many times, I wanted to make this process of verifying file hashes even simpler by making it easy and convenient to generate and compare the hashes. With the help of Sven Groot, we came up with this little applet for your Windows 7 ISO verifying pleasure.

It couldn’t be any easier to use. Simple drag and drop an .ISO file onto this EXE, or double click on it and navigate to the file, then sit back and relax whilst it crunches the numbers. Once it generates a hash, it’ll compare it with a list of known and trustworthy hashes of ISOs to tell you exactly which build version and architecture it is known to be. This list will be updated live over the web so you won’t have to redownload the app.

Download the Windows 7 ISO Verifier (EXE, 253KB)

Disclaimer: Like most entrepreneurs, I take no responsibility for the consequence of using this application. The information is provided only as a guide and cannot be used as evidence in an internet argument.

In short, Strickman Ripps, a people-casting and marketing research company is looking for people who have voiced concerns about operating systems regarding features and functions in the past and are offering $100 for a short 20 minute video interview over the web. Enough money to preorder a particular OS you might be after I might add.

Here’s the offer in full.

Strickman Research, a marketing research firm, has contacted us [or in this case, me] for assistance in reaching out to you [in this case, the plural you] with this invitation to participate in a paid research study. If you qualify for the study, they would ask for no more than 20 minutes of your time and would pay you $100 US:

What are we researching?

We are looking for people who have left comments on various blogs and forums about operating system software they’ve used. We are looking for people who have previously “published” their suggestions online and expressed their wishes for certain features or functions they would like to see in future versions of various PC operating systems [the Windows 7 Taskforce qualifies perfectly]. Such comments can run the gamut from very technical to very broad, for instance comments like: “I wish it would boot faster.” or “How can I share files between my home computers?” would suffice. The wishes and suggestions can be implied in a question where one is hoping to find a solution to a particular problem.

We are looking for comments published online between 1/2004 – 12/2008. More recent assessments of newer operating systems, published in 2009, may also be pertinent.

How do I participate?

If you left a written comment on a blog, forum or informational website which was, broadly speaking, a suggestion or wish for a certain feature or function you would like to see improved in your computer’s operating system, please find your specific comment or comments online and paste the link/s in an email to us at sri-uk@live.com.

Please include:

1. The link to your comment/s including the date when it/they was/were posted
2. Your username on that/those site/s
3. Full name
4. Email address
5. Phone number
6. Location (City/State/Country)
7. Best time to be reached

We are looking for participants age 19 and older in, or very near the following regions: UK, France, Germany, Australia, USA.

What should I expect?

Once we have received your email, and reviewed your comment/s, a representative from Strickman Research will contact you by phone to ask you a few qualifying questions. This call will take no more than 10 minutes of your time. If you qualify (95% of applicants should qualify) we will schedule you for a recorded internet video chat at your convenience that would take no more than 20 minutes of your time and for which you would be paid $100 US in the form of a VISA cash card.

What if I don’t qualify?

If you do not meet the criteria for our research study, we will most likely let you know in the first few minutes of our phone call. We will not trouble you any further and we will not store or share you contact information.

I know this might sound too good to be true, but I have since come across one person I trust who is already involved and assures me that this is indeed legitimate. Furthermore if you’re worried about the @live.com email address, the official company twitter page confirms that these email addresses are indeed real and provides further evidence of this research study. Those who can read between the lines can probably figure out what this is all about too.

If you have any personal concerns, feel free to discuss them in the comments or simply ignore this offer.

Disclaimer: In the spirit of transparency, I have been informed that I do receive a commission for every successful participant but I can safely say that it did not affect my decision to support this project since I made the decision without knowledge of any commissions.

Update: Added clarifications regarding age and region requirements.

The Kodu game by Microsoft Research is out today and I’d encourage anyone with an XBOX 360 with access to Indie Games on the XBOX Marketplace to check it out. Simply put, it’s a sandbox game that allows you to make games using a straightforward but capable visual programming language. By definition it’s not the Little Big Planet for the XBOX 360, but if that makes you want to try it, then let it be.

I’ve been toying with Kodu for a couple of days now and I can’t help imaginging almost everyone will have a different experience with the game because it is so unique and depending on what you want to get out of it. As someone who didn’t take the time to build anything in the game, purely playing other people’s levels has been the ultimate “why didn’t I think of that” experience for me.

The variety of games that the creators and testers have already made is pretty astounding, ranging from a classic story-driven side-scroller to a multi-hole golf game. Even though I have no motivation to create a level from scratch myself, being able to dive into the “source code” of other games is extremely compelling since I’m one who loves to figure out how things work.

I think it’s quite amusing to recognize that in some ways Kodu, a games-building platform, is built on top of Microsoft XNA, another games-building platform.

Furthermore, I want to share with everyone the amazing simple art style of Kodu which I think is the perfect testament to the game’s shallow learning curve as part of its goal to be accessible by kids to learn about the fundamentals of programming.

Unfortunately though due to limitations of the XBOX Indie Games, the XBOX version does not support the community sharing feature that is available on the PC version which I played with. XBOX users can only share their levels on a peer-to-peer basis which limits the discoverability aspect of this game. At the same time, the PC version is not being publically released and limited to only school deployment at the moment.

From a freebie perspective, it’s difficult to imagine anything better. Whilst no person can ever have enough backpacks, drink bottles and glossy printed materials, a netbook on the other hand is not only fun but practical.

The particular netbook on offer is a HP Mini 2140 notebook which has actually been discontinued by HP just recently, but still packs a punch. It features an Intel Atom N270 processor, 160GB of storage, 10.1 inch (16×9) LED display. Microsoft will be preloading the latest public build of Windows 7 at the time (in September so presumably RTM) and attendees will be able to not only gain hands-on experience before the product launch, but also experience it on a netbook-class system, where it is said to perform very well.

From a conference perspective, this is also a smart move on Microsoft’s behalf to optimize the infrastructure necessary for hosting a large-scale event like TechEd. Attendees will be able to use the wireless connectivity to participate in collaborative development activities, download hand-out materials, presentations and communicate with other attendees using the webcam. However from experience the wireless networks are usually already-strained at an event like this, it’d be interesting to see how it will cope with every attendee potentially accessing the network wirelessly at the same time.

Of course, no freebie comes without a moral dilemma. At the conference, recipients of the netbook will be given the choice to receive the device as a gift or a loan. Those who do not need a netbook device can use the machine for the duration of the conference, after which it will be donated to the community sector through a local Microsoft initiative, On My Way, aimed at helping disadvantaged Australians develop technology skills.

To be eligible for this offer, attending must hold a paid registration. Unfortunately, this excludes sponsors, sponsor free tickets, exhibitors, volunteers, Microsoft staff (full-time and contingent), nor any delegate who has received a complimentary ticket (excluding non-Microsoft speakers).

Chinese Microsoft enthusiast blog LiveSino.net today posted a bunch of links to some interesting portfolios by a handful of Chinese designers who works at the Microsoft Advanced Technology Center (ATC) Studios in Beijing. What many people don’t know is that the ATC has been largely responsible for the user experience design of Windows Mobile. This however is no longer the case as WM 6.5 was their last project, but up and until now, they’ve been busy conceptualizing the future of Windows Mobile. Most of those concepts have never surface in public before, until now.

Out of all the portfolios linked, one stands out as the juiciest. Teng Lei, a user experience designer at the ATC recently blogged about a new portfolio by Robin Zhu (not yet launched) who appears to also work at the ATC. What appears to be a teaser quickly turns into an enormous gallery of high resolution clippings from Robin’s portfolio which showcases some extraordinary Windows Mobile concepts he’s designed over the years.

Here’s a select few I found the most interesting, but I would encourage everyone to visit the original blog post to see the whole range.

With these amazing UX concepts, one wonders, where did it all go wrong for Windows Mobile?

Update: The author of these concepts, Robin, clarifies in the comments that not all of these concepts were designed for Windows Mobile but designed for mobile user experiences in general.

[See post to watch Flash video]

I’ve been a big fan of the guided tour videos Apple makes available soon after a new product launch. It’s an effective way of showing off a new product without looking like an advertisement, at the same time educating potential customers about the features of the product without a wordy manual or features list. Now Microsoft has a series of guided tours for Windows 7 too.

Similarly to the recent iPhone 3GS video, the Windows 7 videos too feature a charming employee who introduces and narrates the videos, in this case, Latika Kirtane. If the face looks familiar to you, that’s because you probably watched Latika sing in the now infamous Microsoft Research Songsmith video. Interestingly, according to her LinkedIn profile, she has since moved on from the Windows team to now work on Windows Internet Explorer.

In terms of the video production, it’s fascinating to see the use of Sims-like figures in the introduction of the videos. Each of the four videos feature slightly different themed scenarios related to the topic of the video. The style of the animations are also quite interesting, and if you think of all the other elements that’s been associated with the Windows 7 brand so far – butteries, birds, trees, sunshine – this might actually be a sneak peek at what to expect in the mainstream advertising campaigns.

So I was over at the Microsoft Store seeing if one could pre-order a copy of Windows 7 with a fake US address and saw this banner when I checked out. I thought it was cute Windows is talking about itself in the first-person. It’s also interesting to see Microsoft ultimately classifying Windows 7 as a major upgrade where there’s been quite a bit of a debate on whether it is a major or minor release. Thoughts?

Update: For those who are curious, using a fake US address did not work since it appears to check for the region of your credit card number too (after you complete purchase).

I always get a kick out of reading about Longhorn-era technology that never saw the light of day, only to be implemented years later. Days ago, a couple of then-Microsoft designers working on what was Windows Codename “Longhorn” at the time were granted a patent they filed all the way back in 2005. On closer inspection, their idea is reminiscent of the Aero Snap feature in Windows 7 today, but arguably more powerful.

If you’ve been living under Mount Rushmore for the last 6 months and haven’t yet tried or seen Windows 7, then Aero Snap is a windows management feature that allows you to use mouse gestures to manipulate the size of windows. Whilst maximizing a window was something that was already trivially easy to do, docking two windows side-by-side was not. With Aero Snap, you would simply drag one to the left, and another to the right. Voila.

The Longhorn designers too thought of this windows management problem and came up with a slightly different solution, which I’m going to nickname “Aero Link”.

The first thing that’s different about “Aero Link” is the way it is triggered. Instead of dragging two arbitrary windows to the sides of the displays, it is suggested that one window be dragged to the titlebar of another, with a visual indicator indicating an action occurring. Alternatively it is also suggested that the same trigger can be performed in the taskbar dragging an application’s button onto another application’s button.

The end result of course is as one would expect, two windows side-by-side sharing the entire screen. It might not look any different, but this is where “Aero Link” starts to shine. Because the user has created a symbolic relationship between two windows, the windows would operate in synergy.

It is suggested for example, scrolling one document in the application on the left, would also scroll the document in the application on the right. Furthermore, an API would attempt to neutralize any differences between the applications such as font-size and font-family in a document application so the “child” application would match the “parent” application. Minimizing one application would also minimize the other.

Another cool aspect of this particular implementation is that by resizing one window, in reality it would be like shifting the balance between the two applications, thus easily controlling the split between the applications.

Finally, it was even suggested to create a new windows paradigm to encapsulate the relationship between two application windows by a new parent container as suggested in the diagram on the left, or by removing one set of windows controls as indicated on the right.

First off, if you don’t touch Outlook and use Gmail exclusively like myself, then we should be more ashamed of Google than we are upset at Microsoft. As it turns out, Google’s Gmail is a worse offender in email rendering than Microsoft’s Outlook. As far as I can recall, there isn’t a #fixgmail petition, but as you’ll see below, maybe there should be.

Using the “email acid test” produced by the Email Standards Project which in my professional web development opinion is a basic, fair and practical test of HTML rendering capabilities for email clients, Gmail’s test result makes it the second worst contender in a range of popular modern clients. Outlook 2007 in comparison (and Outlook 2010) is certainly a step in the right direction.

Update: User “Allen Huang” posted a comment noting that Gmail must have since updated their web client to render the HTML test more successfully, if not perfectly. The 2007 screenshot from the Email Standards Project is out of date and is no longer applicable.

Speaking of a step in the right direction, Microsoft as a company is actually no stranger to “email standards” in their products. Their free desktop email clients, Windows Mail and its successor Windows Live Mail, are actually two very capable clients in the email test only to be slightly affected by a bug in the Trident rendering engine. Windows Live Hotmail falls a little short behind on the web client front.

Of course, you might argue Windows and the Windows Live team are separate entities at Microsoft and they have different needs and requirements when designing an email client than the Office team, but that’s where it gets stranger.

What I find weird in particular is that even the Office team itself is no stranger to “email standards”, and I’m not talking about Outlook 2000 either which has been claimed to do a better job than Outlook 2007. Entourage, which is the Outlook equivalent (although some Mac users might argue its equivalence) in Office for Mac has excellent support for HTML email rendering and passes the test with flying colors.

Now on the other side of the spectrum, an argument that’s come up often is that why we need to bother with HTML rendering in email clients at all? One could of course respond by asking a counter-question “why do we need to continuously improve technology”, but I won’t. Whilst HTML emails today might be quite redundant and flashy for no good reason, that shouldn’t be the reason we should hold back either. The web has evolved and is continuously evolving from simple standards, email should evolve with it to make it more compelling and enable more scenarios that similarly you couldn’t imagine the web could do years ago.

Finally, a lot of people seems to be misled by exactly what is being asked of the Outlook team, and their response today seems to indicate they might be too. It is not demanded that Outlook 2010 use a different rendering engine such as Internet Explorer’s Trident.

Using the Word engine to create and display emails is perfectly legitimate since Word allows easy creation of some very compelling graphics to communicate information. In fact, the output of graphics such as SmartArt and charts in Outlook are actually rastered as bitmaps and the output is formatted using no other than the subject under the spotlight, HTML email, making it very much so compatible with the email ecosystem.

All it is asked of Office is to improve its HTML rendering support in Word, which already exists at a below-par level today, to include support for some of the more basic and fundamental HTML elements and CSS styles that would be key to the forward progression of email.

A patent application filed in December of 2007 (not yet granted) by Microsoft reveals an interesting spin on the much touted idea of the human search engine that in theory just might succeed where others have failed by building a real economy around hand-crafted search results.

When thinking of community-powered search engines or “open source” search engines as this patent affectionately mentions, the first thing that probably comes to mind is Mahalo, especially with the new focus on monetary incentives since its relaunch earlier this month. Whilst there are definitely similarities between the two ideas, there is at least one minor but important difference which I think gives Microsoft’s model an edge.

In this particular implementation, the patent suggests users generate targeted search results in the form of lists with numerous relevant web links and even a custom excerpt describing the contents and why its relevant. These lists then appear on the results page of the targeted queries next to the conventional results, thus it is not a search engine that depend entirely on user-generated results, in fact on the opposite end, almost branding such lists as “ads” as suggested in the mockup above.

Next, to motivate users to create high-quality result lists, the patent describes a system of offering monetary incentives for creators who generate “popular” lists, based on volume and/or rankings by other users, tracking clicks and other measurements on the results set.

In order to fuel the economy between creating lists from queries and generating revenues for creators, ad revenues from ads that are shown on websites are used to pay the creators. However, ads are not the only mechanism that may be used to generate revenues. Revenues from a subscription or usage could also be used depending on how the present invention is implemented. The economy provides flexibility by allowing creators to generate popular lists and allowing creators to invest in new entrants into the economy.

Whilst so far everything might sound rather predictable of a community-powered search engine, but the other side of the coin is where it sets this system apart. Instead of a free-for-all system where anyone can create a results list for any topic or query, this patent also describes an economy for targeting queries.

A user [...] can create a list targeting a query. The list is sent to servers to be shown to the public whenever the list is accessed. However, a link to the list is [only] shown to the public when [the] creator pays a value or rent. The amount that creator pays depends on the query, which has an assigned value. Regardless of the size of the generated list, [the] creator pays the value or rent commensurate with the assigned value to the query. Higher value queries command higher payments or rents.

This barrier-to-entry to publishing a list is where sets this system apart from other implementations I’ve witnessed. The system is no longer just an opportunity to earn some loose change, but it actually deters lists that are of low-quality and also builds competition between list creators for a limited number of spaces per query. The word “rent” is of particular interest since it suggests that this may be a fee over time.

Furthermore, there may also be very much a risk involved in creating bad lists. For example, incurring a lost if a list is bad or not updated over time.

As embodiments of the present invention describe incentives for [the] creator to generate a good list, embodiments of the present invention deter the creation of bad lists. If a list is not popular, it will not earn income. Over time, a bad list will lose its opportunity to be shown to the public in favor of more popular lists. This can occur even if the creator has initially paid a value or rent to be shown. For one thing, there is only a limited amount of space where a link can be shown on a web page. It is highly competitive to get a list to be shown and to keep the list being shown. The incentive is to create a good list that will be popular in order to keep it in the public view for as long as possible.

And an example of what a list might look like, for “in-wall microwaves”, a high-valued query I’m sure.

I think such a unforgiving incentive program and economy behind this idea is what is needed to make user-generated search results not only work well but work over time. Certainly I’ll be interested to see if Microsoft or any company has the guts to realize this idea in practice.