Call us crazy (and we know you do), but we're firmly convinced that there's some kind of conspiracy of silence or something regarding QuickTime. We didn't comment on it at the time, but a few weeks ago faithful viewer Stephen White brought to our attention a New York Times article about web video. It claimed that, as far as market share among the competing architectures was concerned, RealPlayer was in the lead, QuickTime was in second place, and Microsoft's Media Player was bringing up the rear, but gaining fast. The really wonky thing, though, was that the article barely mentioned QuickTime, only to say something like "QuickTime is not comparable, since unlike the other two offerings, it is not geared towards streaming media." Say what? Them's fightin' words! So now millions of Times readers think QuickTime can't stream. Great.

At the time we just wrote the whole thing off to ignorance and a Times research department that needs to switch from heroin to speed. But now PC World Online's posted its "streaming shootout" article comparing RealPlayer to Windows Media-- and QuickTime is nowhere to be found. Point by point, the article lists the pros and cons of the respective technologies, eventually concluding that performance and quality of the two are virtually identical. Meanwhile, unlike in the Times article, QuickTime isn't even listed as a fringe technology. Strangely enough, though, bundled with the article is a "QuickVote" poll, asking readers which streaming technology they prefer: RealPlayer, Windows Media, QuickTime, or "other." (There are others?) So while QuickTime evidently didn't rate highly enough to make the cut for the article itself, at least it's represented in the poll.

Even funnier, though, are the ongoing results of said poll. At last check, QuickTime was waaay out in front, with 56% of the over 13,000 votes cast. RealPlayer was in second place, with only 27%, and Windows Media scores a distant third with a measly 16%. (1% chose "other," so apparently there is something else out there-- or 145 respondents seriously lack hand-eye coordination.) In light of this frustrating tendency of the press to ignore QuickTime, it's pretty gratifying to see even a meaningless poll trumpet QuickTime's popularity. Feel free to skew those results however you see fit.

There go our plans for the pool... So, uh, how long do you suppose it'll be after Windows 2000 is released on February 17th before the first security holes are discovered and patched? Before you answer, remember that we're talking about Microsoft, here-- the company for whom "security" is evidently a four-letter word. Three days? Two? Trick question-- the answer, apparently, is "negative twenty-two." Yes, according to an article in Inter@ctive Week, last Wednesday Microsoft released its first Windows 2000 security patch, a full twenty-two days before the product is even available. Now that's service.

It seems that a gentleman named David Litchfield discovered a fairly major security hole back on January 17th, a full month before the product is slated to ship. Reportedly this bug "allows hackers to view files stored on a target web server," including, say, temporary files containing credit card information, password files, etc. A default installation of Windows 2000 has the bug enabled, and while a patch is already available to correct the problem, we just have to wonder what percentage of users are going to hear about the hole and actually take steps to fix it. Then again, we figure that anyone who's used to Windows server administration probably only brushes once a day, but downloads security patches after every meal. It just sort of goes with the territory, it seems.

The Spit-Take Quote of the Week award goes to Microsoft Security Manager Scott Culp, for saying-- and we warn you not to drink anything while reading this-- "It's not for us to assess the seriousness of this problem, because we take all security risks seriously." Now, to be fair, they did manage to squeeze out a patch in only nine days. And if you take it as read that all those yahoos actually running Windows 2000 betas on production systems deserve all the headaches they get ("at least six banks and three major computer manufacturers" are/were affected by the security hole; what, has someone been on a rampage with the Clueless Stick or something?), heck, there was no rush... Windows 2000 isn't even out yet, right? Oh, sure, you could take the attitude that the bug should never have existed in the first place, but nobody likes a smartass. This is innovation, buddy; if you don't like it, go rub two sticks together or something.

What, exactly, is Perfect.com? Don't ask us-- after digging around the perplexing site for several frustrating minutes, the clearest thing we can determine is that it's an "infomediary startup" company, whatever the heck that is. The whole point of the company's web site appears to be to render visitors perfectly confused. Or, more likely, it's a dot-com startup that doesn't even know what its purpose is yet, other than to grab some of that sweet venture capital. Who knows? Heck, dig around long enough and you'll find this gem: "We're itching to divulge precisely how we'll transform the culture of e-commerce. But a large majority of our company stats and consumer site information must remain confidential until we go live." Mmmm, sure makes you want to leap in and work there, doesn't it?

In fact, the only reason we mention Perfect.com (other than the fact that there's something inherently entertaining about a company's web site that intentionally tells you almost nothing about the company) is because faithful viewer Alan Carr sent us there. And why? Because if you dig through their "culture" pages, you'll find that this dot-com startup decided to paint their new offices in "fun iMac colors." The iMac's influence is everywhere-- even at companies who... do something or other.

The results of the paint job are, admittedly, pretty nice. But don't go rushing off to submit a résumé just yet; just because Perfect.com paints their offices in Blueberry and Grape doesn't mean their employees use iMacs themselves. Apparently the machines of choice are "P3-450's." Pity. And here we thought it'd be fun to work at a company that does whatever it is they do.