The 2007 version of Microsoft’s Office Suite supports new file formats and new fonts that won’t work on older versions without a compatibility upgrade.

Users of the Office Suite can check out Microsoft Office Compatibility Pack for Word, Excel, and PowerPoint 2007 File Formats. Just download O2007Cnv.exe in the language of your choice and install. Your system will be updated to allow backwards compatibility with files saved from the newer versions and even if you don’t have MS Office, you will be pleased to note that this .exe will also automatically install Microsoft’s new Vista fonts including Calibri which is slated to replace Times New Roman.

I question the logic behind replacing the most ubiquitous serif font set of the past 10 years, Times New Roman, with a sans-serif font, Calibri. While sans-serif fonts are known to be easier to read on screen, it seems to me that most of the things people type in word processors are going to be printed anyway.

Having said that, I still like the new fonts.

On June 5, 1996 HoTMaiL was publicly announced. 3 years and 8 million users later it sold to Microsoft for $400 million.

Read about it in this interesting Wired Article.

I upgraded my MSN Messenger to the newest version today. The MSN site explained that there were security problems with their older versions that upgrading would fix. When I actually installed version 6.2, a screen from the installer gave me the option to install three “features.” Good thing I was paying attention and unchecked the default options.

First off, the irony in offering a pop-up blocker for Internet Explorer (IE) is fairly striking. Why does the Redmond giant need users to install an add-on to their product through messenger to make it better? Why not just include the pop-up blocker with IE instead of trying to manipulate upgrading users into using it? The real question is, why didn’t they include a pop-up blocker option with IE in the first place? I believe Microsoft thought blocking pop-up ads was bad for business. Advertisers might not like the fact that they can’t sell you X10 cameras from every webpage you visit if your browser can easily block their ads. Not to mention the fact that Microsoft wouldn’t want Internet Explorer blocking even their own Hotmail pop-ups. Is nothing sacred? I assume that it is Google’s popularity (specifically the Google Toolbar—which, by the way, is excellent) that is signaling Microsoft that maybe now is the time to get on the ball and offer a product worth using.

Which brings me to the second “feature”. Make MSN your default search engine. Why? So we can spend twice as long searching and then end up searching again on another site anyway? Google is the fastest, most reliable, and most entertaining search engine out there. Millions of people worldwide use it as their home page.

Which may be exactly why Microsoft has another default check in front of their third choice, “Make MSN Home your default home page.” They want people to read their ads, use their search engine, and basically do everything Microsoft wants them to.

So was this upgrade specifically to fight off Google? Maybe, maybe not, but reading the technical description made me think that this mandatory upgrade isn’t very mandatory at all.

And the nitty-gritty from their security bulletin site:

Technical description:

A security vulnerability exists in Microsoft MSN Messenger. The vulnerability exists because of the method used by MSN Messenger to handle a file request. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending a specially crafted request to a user running MSN Messenger. If exploited successfully, the attacker could view the contents of a file on the hard drive without the user’s knowledge as long as the attacker knew the location of the file and the user had read access to the file.

To exploit this vulnerability, an attacker would have to know the sign-on name of the MSN Messenger user in order to send the request.

Mitigating factors:

• An attacker must know the sign-on name of the user
• If the user has blocked receiving messages from anonymous users not on their contact list by placing “All Others” in their block list, the attacker’s messenger account must be on the user’s allow list to exploit the vulnerability.
• The attacker could access files that the user had read access to. If the user is logged into the computer with restricted privileges this would limit the files that the attacker could access.

It looks like this is a pretty minor vulnerabilty. Someone would really have to have it out for you—and know a lot of personal information before being able to exploit this bug.

On the other hand, there are a couple of noteworthy changes in this version. Mobile users now appear with a yellow avatar instead of the standard green, as well their is an option to create custom emoticons or use a selection of new animated MSN ones. The best new feature appears to be an option to create a share folder which makes it easier to share files with other users.

So despite my complaints my advice is this—unless you are completely satisfied with your current version, don’t be shy; go ahead and upgrade. When you do, just remember to turn off the default checks for other MSN “features”.

CNN reports that Mike Rowe has agreed to a settlement with industry giant Microsoft. They even threw in an Xbox to seal the deal.

The Software giant is mad because Mike Rowe’s new website http://www.mikerowesoft.com sounds a lot like Microsoft.com. Well boo-hoo. They offered him $10 to buy the domain from him. He said he’d like $10,000 and after they realized their scare tactics weren’t working it sounds like they might actually back off, from ZDnet, “We take our trademarks seriously, but in this case maybe a little too seriously. It’s important to recognize that under the law companies are required to take this type of action to protect their trademark against widespread infringement. But that said, we appreciate that Mike Rowe is a young entrepreneur who came up with a creative domain name. We’re currently in the process of resolving this matter in a way that will be fair to him and satisfy our obligations under trademark law.”