Spotify continued adding to its service today by allowing users to download tracks directly from Spotify onto their hard drive. Of course, users have been able to purchase MP3 tracks for a few months now but only by right-clicking tracks and being taken to 7digital's website. Now everything has been streamlined and can be done directly within the Spotify interface. From now on, users will see a "Buy" button (which annoyingly for many paid-up Premium members can't be removed or deactivated) next to tracks which when clicked, allows you to enter card details.

Note that the new download purchase option will initially be available in the UK and Germany, France, Italy and Spain with Sweden, Norway and Finland following in a few weeks’ time. It's not clear how much each track costs but Spotify say once purchased, you will be able to download them a further 3-5 times depending on the label. There is no DRM attached to tracks so they can be transferred to any external device and most tracks are in very high quality 256/320kpbs MP3 format. This all gives Spotify a distinct advantage over iTunes downloads which only allow 20 second previews and one download per song.

However, while I can see that this purchase option will appeal to free users of the service so that they can download the odd track they really like, it will surely appeal less to Premium users. Those that are already paying around $10 a month for ad-free listening will probably see no reason why they should stump-up extra cash just for the pleasure of owning tracks. Especially now that they can use Spotify on their iPhone or Android mobile and use the offline listening function to access music when no internet connection is available.

The latest version of Windows Mobile rolls out today, as Microsoft tries to put a spring in the step of its aging mobile OS. Windows Mobile 6.5, which we previewed back in February, is designed to freshen up the hopelessly dated shell, making it more touch-friendly and improving on the browsing capabilities within the operating system. But can Microsoft really expect to make ground on its plusher, faster, and more functional rivals, such as iPhone, Android and BlackBerry? It's a big ask, but there are a few new additions that might help. In fact, I've counted six and a half.

Today screen - It's actually called a 'Home' screen now, but this is still the page where everything begins in Windows Mobile. Revamped to make it more touch-friendly, the screen consists only of text headings for the various apps and tools. The shortcuts on the Home screen are much neater and more intelligent than previous versions of the Today screen in WM. Now you can even launch individual Internet Explorer favorites directly from this screen.

Unlock specific tools - The phone unlocking capabilities are much improved in Windows Mobile 6.5, making them much more akin to the likes of the iPhone and Android systems. You can now slide to unlock specific items such as messages and missed calls.

Honeycomb interface - The new honeycomb-style Start menu interface is the flagship feature of the new Windows Mobile. It's a vast improvement from the archaic-looking menu screens of the previous incarnations, and has been designed specifically for touchscreen use. Icons are spaced out much more, and can be scrolled up and down rather than having to fumble between different screens.

Here's a conundrum for you. Normally we're full of hints and tips at OnSoftware but this is an appeal for help from you the readers and also a warning of the dangers of using  CCleaner. Basically, I've got myself into a lot of bother after an over zealous cleaning session with it and can't start Windows on my Acer Aspire 1414. Since my CD/DVD drive is broken, I can't use a Windows XP disk to boot so the only option available to me is to perform a Network Boot.

Unfortunately, I have no idea how to do this which is why I'm appealing for help. Why on earth the bios won't let me boot from a USB drive I have no idea but it's a glaring error by Acer. The problem started after using CCleaner to uninstall programs, clean the hard drive and "fix" the registry. On restarting, my Acer Aspire booted as far as the Windows XP logo before going straight to the blue screen of death and now won't even let me start in Safe Mode. The Acer bios gives me only one other boot option - a Network Boot - which I've been unable to figure out. A search on the internet reveals network booting involves a scary world of PXEs and DHCP which I've found very hard to understand. All that I know is that I have to connect my Acer laptop to another laptop with an ethernet cable!

The blue screen of death error code I'm getting is a "C000021a (fatal system error) The session manager initialization system process terminated unexpectedly". It's clear that the problem is related to the session login part of Windows startup i.e. the bit where you click your username and enter your password to use Windows. I don't see why this should stop me at least starting in Safe Mode but if I ever do get it started again, I'm going to remove the session manager completely. Beware all those that currently use it and CCleaner at the same time.

Operating system, web browser, office suite, media player... Microsoft had everything covered, except for a security application. A few months ago they surprised us with Microsoft Security Essentials, their first attempt at developing a stand-alone security application for home use. Today, Security Essentials has come of age, leaving the beta stage behind and launching its first final version.

It seems that the three months of beta testing have been as calm as a millpond. At least that's what you infer from the differences between the beta and the final versions, which are basically none. Microsoft Security Essentials features the same clear, easy-to-use tabbed interface and pretty the same tools and functionality.

Microsoft Security Essentials includes three types of scans: Quick, which scans those areas in your system that are most likely to get infected; Full, which scans your whole computer; and Customizable, which lets you select which specific folders and files should be scanned.

The problem

The more digital content we store on our computers, the more important reliable backup solutions become. For example, my iMac has about 50GB of music and photos on its primary disk drive. While much of the music could probably be replaced, any photo not yet uploaded to Flickr would be lost forever if that disk failed. So, like many other Mac users, I use Time Machine to maintain a secure copy of all my files, albeit on a potentially unstable portable hard disk in the same room as my Mac.

It was this potential unreliability of my Time Machine disk that got me interested in online backup options. What could be better than being able to backup to a remote server, safe in the knowledge that should any disaster befall my Time Machine disk, everything would still be OK. At least, that was the theory.

Solution found!

After some research and a little help from OnSoftware, I settled on Mozy for Mac - generally regarded as being a great online backup tool. I signed up for the $4.95/month unlimited backup plan: I thought (and still think) that $5 a month is a pretty good price point for total peace of mind. After setting up my account - a really simple process - and installing the Mozy desktop client - also a breeze - I let Mozy get to work on its initial backup. It was about eight hours after this that I spotted the main flaw in Mozy's design: you have to complete an entire backup in one go right at the beginning, without any interruptions whatsoever. You can't go restarting your Mac (not that I did), and you can't lose connectivity for even a short time, which seems to have happened to me.

Around this time, my Mac was acting a little weird. I'd narrowed the problem down to a graphics driver error, but the truth is that my Mac was freezing from time to time. This meant that every time the driver error reared its ugly exception, I'd have to start from scratch on the Mozy backup. That's not Mozy's fault, nor is the occasional eccentricity of my ADSL connection. But Mozy could come up with a way of resuming backups, even for the initial backup process.

In order to be fair, I tried running Mozy after I'd fixed the driver issue and done a clean install, to see if it performed better under optimal conditions. Left overnight, I expected Mozy to be up to about 25% when I checked it in the morning. Unfortunately, Mozy had failed for some unknown reason at some point during the evening... all I could do was start it again. Then it failed again during the day. So I canceled my account, disappointed by a product that I'd been planning on loving.

Two things Mozy could do to win me back

Find a way of resuming backups. When backing up 100GB of data, it's just ridiculous that an interruption causes the whole process to be canceled. Building a decent file index at the beginning of the backup operation should allow for Mozy to pick up where it left off, and then look for changes after the initial backup is complete.

Clearer error messages. One of the biggest problems I found was that when Mozy's backup process failed, the information available about what had happened was very limited. More information, on the web side of the user interface, if necessary, would make it easier to diagnose and fix problems preventing the backup from working properly.

Having a string of passwords for online accounts and computers is part of life today, and they are supposed to be the means for keeping our stuff safe. Despite this many of us use incredibly easy passwords, like the Twitter employee whose Gmail account had the password "password"! You shouldn't be that stupid.

Much of password hacking isn't like the movies, but either educated guess work or using programs that fling the entire dictionary at password protected things, until they happen upon the right one.

Here are two simple things you can do to improve your passwords,

1: Don't use just a word, and don't use something related to you that anyone might be able to find out or easily guess. So no dates, or names of loved ones! Not doing that will keep the most basic hacks away. Complicated, seemingly random passwords maybe hard to remember, but you'll be surprised how quickly your fingers learn the routine. Create a random password, and give yourself a week to remember it!

2: For password recovery and internet banking, when a password system asks security questions make the answers as bizarre and uniquely yours as possible: What was the name of your first school? Don't give the right answer, as that might be discoverable: What was the name of my first school? Monkey Tennis Junior. Not true, but something I will remember. If you can create a question, be as bizarre as you can be - as long as it's something memorable for you!

Most of us will never suffer from identity theft, but these two suggestions will keep you as safe as you reasonably can be. Of course, all systems are probably hackable by someone with the right resources and persistence, but it's difficult enough that it's not worth doing for normal people!

Way back when, at the very beginning of home computing, you had two options for obtaining software. You could buy it, or you could buy it.

Luckily, things have changed. Companies like Google and Mozilla started to do something that was completely unheard of - something that would really irritate giants like Microsoft. They began to produce open-source services and software for large-scale distribution. Suddenly, you didn't have to be a slave to the big boys - unless you wanted to. Open source went hand in hand with other free things. Crowdsourcing. GPL. Suddenly the Internet looked like a very different place. Thousands of people were working together to bring computing to everyone. Cooperation and free access were the mainstays of the movement.

The history of open-source software is heart-warming. It is also just that - history. Things have changed, and companies like the ones mentioned above are now huge corporations with multi-million dollar turnovers. They have money. They have fame. They have power. Is it still fair for them to ask other people to do their work for free?

Don't get me wrong. I love free software, a pretty major requisite for working at Softonic. The other day I was browsing through the latest software news when I noticed an ad for a design challenge from a big-name company. The competition invited users to overcome a design problem with tabs and, although I found it hard to pin down the precise details, the winning solution would have a Creative Commons Attribution license. This means that the company in question, or anyone else, would be free to 'remix' the solution for their own use. And the reward for providing this solution, this raw material? Money? A job? A holiday in the Seychelles? Nope. As far as I could see, their name would be mentioned in connection with the solution.

An interesting query from one of our (anonymous) readers on a topic which has even cropped up in our editorial meetings:

Hi! I've been thinking about buying a smartphone, and one of the features I've heard people talking about on mobile blogs is "Augmented Reality". What is that, and why is it useful? Should it affect my choice of phone?

Though it seems like something of a current buzzword, Augmented Reality as a term was actually coined in the 1980's. In simple terms, Augmented Reality - also called AR - means the enhancement of what you have around you by adding a layer of data to it. In other words, you can use AR to make your surroundings 'smarter' - pointing out places of interest, for example.

On my HTC Magic Android phone (AKA the myTouch 3G), I've tried out a few of the more popular AR apps and I can honestly say that while I don't use them 24/7, knowing that I have them to hand is a great feeling. Wikitude AR is the first Augmented Reality app I tried and its results were impressive. Simply point your phone's camera at anything you like and Wikitude combines GPS location, your phone's internal compass and a variety of data streams (most notably Wikipedia) to provide you with a wealth of information about what you're looking at. A newer competitor, Layar, performs similarly but with the advantage of being free and open - meaning that anyone can add their own data layer to it.

Another application, Google's Sky Map, may not be considered to be a classic use of AR but in my opinion it's a great example of what Augmented Reality can do. Using it to locate and name celestial objects is actually really fun and enhances a fun hobby.

What got me started thinking about this most recently was testing Spotify mobile, for Android and iPhone. The high quality streaming service means users needn't carry their music collections around on their devices, just open Spotify and listen to whatever they want. I find it hard to believe that streaming all that data is an efficient way to listen to music.

Old heavy industry has a poor environmental image, but do new high tech industries do much better? We don't imagine smoke stacks and poisoned lakes etc when we think of web 2.0 (or 2.1, 3.0...), but is there any evidence this industry thinks about the future of the planet any more than the old industries?

With the Spotify mobile apps one thing becomes quickly obvious - streaming to your phone hits your battery, much more than listening to your personal library would.

I have a contact who works with design sustainability in the UK, and after a short discussion about Spotify, his answer was unequivocal: "Digital streaming has the look of another clever technology that is not good for us".

In essence it's because when consuming media 'locally', you only have to download it once, and can then access it as many times as you want, only using the energy of that one device. But with streaming services, every time you access media you are consuming more energy in the sending and receiving  of information, the server running at the other end and your device too. That uses more energy.

We are supposed to be cutting our energy consumption dramatically over the next decade, and yet are developing new technologies that are obviously less energy efficient. I'm picking on Spotify because it's new - video services like Voddler would undoubtedly be worse, and any streaming service is essentially wasteful. These services are convenient, and people love what they can do, but shouldn't convenience be secondary to sustainability? The idea of downloading content that is then "thrown away" immediately after use is dreadful, after all.

I read many tech blogs daily, and the environment is basically off the radar, as if it's not their concern. It is everyone's concern: if sustainability and energy efficiency aren't part of your development and design decisions in the 21st Century, you are designing irresponsibly.

While browsing through the comments on OnSoftware, I discovered the blog of one commenter who had written a post called Twitter is killing my blog and it got me thinking. One of the main reasons for his preference for Twitter was that it's an "easy avenue to be connected" that he felt "a sense of participation" and that he got instant feedback when asking for opinions.

Some of this rings very true. I've also noticed a drop-off in blogging from blogs I follow whose writers have concentrated more on using Twitter. Communications consultant Mark Evans claims he also noticed the same thing a while back.

I think there's several reasons for this:

• Tweeting is quick and easy. Using a Twitter client involves far less fuss than a blogging interface such as WordPress or Blogger. Perhaps most importantly, issuing a tweet cuts far less into your working day than putting together a well thought-out blog post.
• Twitter provides a greater sense of being connected. Because it's so easy to update, regular tweeters tend to do so much more frequently than they blog fostering a greater sense of inter-communication. Searching by keywords also instantly puts you in touch with people with shared interests.
• There's no waffle in tweeting. It's easy to wax lyrical in a blog post but you simply can't afford to do that in a 140 character tweet. People have to get to the point immediately (even if it's only to say, "I just went to the bathroom").
• It's ideal for short attention spans. We're bombarded with so much information everyday that attention spans are inevitable getting shorter. The brevity of tweets means that Twitter is the perfect outlet to tap into this.

Maybe then it should be no surprise if more bloggers are moving towards Tweeting. However, what I'd prefer to see is more bloggers using Twitter to promote things they've written on their blog or complement their blogging in some way. Tweeting can never allow the degree of expressiveness, discussion and analysis that blogging does and it would be a shame to see the better bloggers out there ditch their blogs in the name of quick tweet.

Opera has somehow remained behind the scenes in the so-called battle of the web browsers... until today. With the release of its brand new version 10, Opera has now the chance to jump on stage as it proves an excellent alternative to other more widely-used browsers.

If you've downloaded the previous beta and RC releases, you won't notice many differences in this final version. The interface and functionality remain pretty much the same, at least at first sight.

However, Opera 10 does include nice improvements compared with older versions. The first feature you'll probably notice is Speed Dial, a special page Opera 10 displays every time you open a new tab. This page is automatically generated with thumbnails that link to the websites you visit most frequently, but can also freely customized with other sites. So don't worry about a sensitive web page showing up: you can easily remove it from Speed Dial.

Another outstanding characteristic in Opera 10 is Opera Turbo, a cutting-edge technology that compresses web pages for improved loading times. According to Opera developers, it enables the browser to render pages up to 8 times faster. Opera Turbo is designed to work with slower Internet connections, so don't expect it to be any use if you're enjoying a high-speed broadband service.

Spotify, the application that lets you stream almost any music you can think of, free, is obviously a pretty popular application. I don't like it! It doesn't have everything I own, so won't replace my hard drive collection, the advertisements aren't targeted and are pretty horrible. Worse, no matter how much stuff I listen to the front page always has music I will hate on it. Spotify just doesn't get me, and doesn't seem to be trying. Sorry for being rude, but that strikes me as a bit web 1.0.

Here are some alternative ways to get aural satisfaction from the internet:

The daddy of social music sites, and despite being sold to an evil corporation it's still pretty cool. Last.fm has a large user community, recommendations based on your listening history and concert listings. It records your iTunes activity, and builds a profile of your tastes, and you can listen to Last.fm radio stations based on genre, similar artists or the stations of other users. There's  less control than Spotify, but you will hear new music you might like.

Similar in some respects to Last.fm, in that you can listen to generated radio stations based on genre. You can also build and save playlists. Deezer's interface is really intuitive, and not a million miles away from iTunes, so you'll feel right at home. It even has an equalizer! They have a good sized library, but Spotify seems bigger.

This is very different. The Hype Machine collects music that is being blogged about. You can play all the music in their site, and if you have an account and "love" tracks, you can build a playlist of music and artists you like. It's fantastic for hearing brand new music, and keeping up with what's hot! It features Last.fm synchronization too, so you can scrobble all the cool new tracks you're listening to.

This internet jukebox lets you search and listen to music, using YouTube.com and imeem as its library. With a songza account you can build a playlist, but other than that it's pretty basic. As it uses YouTube as a source, the library is huge, although the quality varies a lot.

Similar to Last.fm, imeem has lots of social features, like twittering tracks you like, and sharing and creating playlists. Personally I think Last.fm is a nicer site, but it's probably just a matter of personal taste!

This barely scratches the surface of web based listening. What are you favorites?

 Apple's App Store for iPhone has revolutionized software distribution for mobile devices. Combining ease of use for end users and simple monetization options for software developers, the App Store has proved to be a great success. But the store has also been criticized by many because of the way it forces iPhone owners into using one place to find all their apps, as well as the fact that Apple has blocked applications which might compete with its own software.

So what is Apple planning for the App Store? In this post, Tom and Jon present wildly opposing views of the future of Apple's App Store.

Tom: Yes, Apple will roll out that App Store on Macs

The success of the App Store in changing the world of software cannot be underrated. Small applications are cool, desirable and popular. The other key mobile platforms have followed suit, launching their own app stores. And all this despite the fact that software distribution on the iPhone is actually a much tighter-controlled system than anything we've ever seen.

My prediction is that within four years, software distribution for Mac desktops and notebooks will occur solely through the App Store. The App Store will be relatively closed (programs will need approval from Apple just like now), and while many developers will be annoyed at Apple's move, they will finally be forced to embrace it as the only method for getting their software installed on your Mac.

Why would Apple do this? The way I see it, they have little choice. It's a natural next step from their current position and it will maintain their control of the Mac OS platform. Additionally, controlling the distribution of software clearly generates a massive revenue stream for Apple. I see this move as utterly inevitable, and working for a software download site, I'm looking forward to the challenges this will present!

Jon: No, Rolling out the App Store to other platforms is not inevitable

In short, rolling out the App Store to bigger devices would be costly, dangerous for the cool Apple brand, and put profits above good design.

The iPhone App Store is so successful because it's a small device, and the well designed program makes downloading and buying applications really easy. Doing so in Safari would have been a pain. Without the constraints of a small mobile screen, the App Store is less necessary. Before the App Store, there was no intuitive software distribution for mobile applications. But on Macs (and Windows PCs), this isn't an issue. Downloading applications is already easy.

Another issue is Apple approving everything. The iPhone is popular and has tons of applications, but that number will be dwarfed by software for the Macs. There must be a point at which the overheads required to run the App Store undermine any desire for a closed system. After all, it's not like the current system is broken, and it's hardware where Apple make the vast majority of their money.

They might introduce an App Store, but to make it closed would really hamper people's use and enjoyment of their Macs. Would they really stop you downloading programs through your browser? High-end users would hate this, and Apple's cool quotient comes in part from these users.

The last reason is that the App Store is as much a part of the iPhone experience as iTunes is part of the iPod experience. The software is an integral part of the device, and makes it complete. The Mac has OSX, which alongside the beautiful hardware makes the Mac experience loved by its users. A closed App store wouldn't improve the OSX experience, and all Apple products are designed primarily around great user experience (from which flows their huge profits).

I can't see the iPhone App Store model as the inevitable future for everything. It's still relatively new, and has also been coming under sustained criticism which may even prompt Apple to open it up a little.

What do you think?

After being around for a while in Europe, and according to the latest rumors, Spotify will be available stateside in a few months. While I'm sure music fans in the United States are looking forward to testing it, the truth is that all that glitters is not gold. Spotify is a great app, there's no doubt about it. We've raved about it a couple of times on this blog. But there's also a big catch to it: ads.

Spotify is currently offered in three versions: Premium (€9.99 per month), Day pass (€0.99 for 24 hours) and Free, which is ad-supported. This last version is the one that raises most controversy. I've been using Spotify for seven months now, and during this time I've noticed an increase in the number and frequency of ads. I understand Spotify needs to make money in some way, and I'm honestly willing to listen to ads from time to time if that means I can access their extensive music catalog for free. But what I don't like at all is having ads every two or three tracks. Not even standard commercial radio stations have that much advertising!

The funny thing is that I'm not the only one that has noticed this increase. The whole OnSoftware editorial team was also complaining about it, so we decided to conduct a small research project: listen to music on Spotify for a whole hour and count all the ads you get. As a result, Jon, Nick and me got seven ads each, while Tom had six and James, four. Not that bad for just 60 minutes of music. It seems that the more often you use Spotify, the more ads you get: James is almost new to the program and he only had four, while the rest of us, Spotify veterans, obtained higher scores.

And what are Spotify ads about? Well, most of them explain new features in the application or encourage you to upgrade to the Premium version. Others are about MP3 download services, or new albums and artists you can find on the program. Some of them are in English, which I find a bit out of place since we're in Spain. And the vast majority are quite poor in quality, but there's no way you can skip them: if you turn the volume down so as to not hear them, they'll be paused until you turn the volume up again.

I used to love Spotify and recommended it to all of my friends. Now I'm not so sure about it. On the one hand, it's a simple program that offers an incredible amount of music, just a click away; on the other hand, the Free version has become so ad-ridden that it's a bit too annoying to use. Sorry, but I'm back to Winamp now.

Apple has been getting a lot of flak recently, from us as well as elsewhere. People aren't happy the the iPhone App Store isn't allowing Google Voice, or in general about the policy of not allowing any app that does something already available from Apple.

Apple is scared of competition, stifling innovation and generally annoying people by not doing whatever it is people want. I'm not sure things should have got so bad, despite my earlier claim they might be losing their cool.

It is certainly true that if Microsoft was seen as being this controlling today, it would get roasted by the press (as it has done in the past). But I think Microsoft are in a very different position, as they have a massive market lead over the rest, and unless you can pay more for an Apple,  or are brave enough for the uber-tech-nerd world of Linux, you will use Microsoft. So they'd better listen to people, as people mostly aren't using them by choice.

But you choose to use a Mac, or to buy an iPhone. Apple products are beautifully designed, incredibly user friendly, and generally don't crash. People loved the iPhone when it came out, but now it's being demonized for not being able to do something it has never been able to do. Maybe the iPhone would be improved with Google Voice -  but it's no worse without it. It seems a great deal of this is that users feel they are being denied a free service, but you can't blame companies for wanting to maintain revenue.

To me, people are wrongly assuming that because they own a product, they have a say in its development. They don't. Apple, like Nintendo, make incredible products by not listening to people, and being secretive. There may be odd things that other companies do better, but none of them get the whole package as right as the iPod and Mario creators. When lowly users are allowed to get involved, you get a big mess as the Simpsons showed us years ago with "The Homer" automobile.

As for exploding iPods: that just sounds cool!