Prev: Faxing over the network
Next: Microsoft Responds to the Evolution of Online Communities
From: VanguardLH on 11 May 2010 14:56
Prof Wonmug wrote:

> Wow. Sorry to have gotten under your skin like that. I hope I didn't
> ruin your whole day. ;-)

It seemed you were lambasting the same folks that were trying to help you.
Despite that it might not be an answer you like doesn't alter that it might
be the correct answer. Like the tale goes about the child wanting to know
why God didn't answer his prayers, the answer was "Sometimes God says No".
Sometimes you just can't get what you want and No is the correct answer.
You don't like the answer but it is the answer. Don't shoot the messenger.

As far as the "advanced" search goes in Outlook, yep, it isn't as advanced
as you want or as many users wish. I think that's why Microsoft spent their
time on a search tool that works inside as well as outside of Outlook
because the same need for a better search was also needed in their other
Office components, in the Windows file system, and for other common 3rd
party apps. I just haven't gotten to the point of needing a search engine.
I come close sometimes and decide to do some trials but end up deciding not
to use any. In my last trial over half a year ago, and out of Windows
Search, Google Desktop, and Copernic, I decided to stick with further
trialing of Copernic; however, my wants are different than yours so I don't
know if Copernic would satify you wants. They're all free so you could
which one you like best for yourself.

> I'm not asking for a feature. I realize that no one here has any
> ability to influence the product. I merely asked if it could do what
> most competent search facilities can do. When I was told that it
> can't, I commented on yet another of the many inadequacies of the
> "products" from Redmond. That's when the apologists came out of the
> woodwork. Not nice to criticize Microsoft.

There are always inadequacies in every software product, in every hardware
product, in your television, in your laundry washer, with your car, in your
house, in your expertise of your native language, in your musical talent,
especially when others gets involved that wants to make use of those.
Microsoft already knew that and made extensible their Office components. So
the real problem lies with users that realize that an Office component is
extensible but then don't do anything about it and are unwilling to search
or pay for someone else's work for an extension. God said No but that
doesn't stop you from making it happen. Whether you do or not really
depends on just how important was your need. I'd like my lawn to be more
flat to make it prettier and easier to mow but I lack a strong enough desire
to bother digging up my lawn, tilling the soil, grading it, and then
re-sodding it. It could happen, I'd like the results, but I'm not willing
to put in the effort. That Outlook is extensible to do what you want
doesn't mean that you or someone else took the time to do it.

> I also made a couple of comments about the pathetic lack of
> comprehension by some of the difference between the internal structure
> of the Outlook folders and the external representation. As far as I
> can tell, msot of the commentators still do not comprehend that. Oh,
> well.

That probably came about because many users do confuse the tree hierarchy
and items inside Outlook's message store as the *same* as folders and files
within the OS file system and expect to make similar actions against them.
Yes, there are underlying definitions regarding the structures of each but
they are completely different structures with different attributes and
different methods of access and manipulation. One is Greek, the other is
Russian, both built atop of linguistic structures and which have some
commonality below the grammatical syntax, and both can perhaps speak very
well but not to each other.

I haven't used the Windows Search in a long time (and when I did it was just
a very short trial). I suspect it will dig into Outlook's message store
just as well as it digs into the OS file system looking for items/files and
cataloging their contents.

> The Office division is the poor step-child at Microsoft. That's where
> they send the developers who can't cut it in the OS divisions. But you
> continue to tell anyone who voices a contrary opinion to sit down and
> shut up.

As I recall over the years, the Word and Windows divisions were too close
and caused concern at Microsoft about anti-trust lawsuits from the gov't
because of undocumented features in Windows being used by Word. So
Microsoft took pains to keep those divisions separate and non-communicative.
Of course, over the years and without any pressure to do othewise, it is
possible they grew closer again. I don't believe those divisions are as
close as you want them to be. Also, the expertise to develop code for an
enterprise-level document processor (Word) is probably significantly
different than the expertise for an OS programmer. Just because you do one
doesn't mean you can do the other well (and in today's employment market
there would be no need to "save" on manpower by moving workers around to
jobs they aren't any more capable of doing than a new-hire that can do the
job but works for cheaper than the worker that has seniority).

I doubt anything at Microsoft happens the way you describe. Again, this is
you salving your wound (about not having the feature you want) rather than
knowing the real cause of perceived injury. It doesn't help your situation
to make up stories that satisfy your striking out at someone that doesn't
give you what you want.

You probably now need to go trial the search engines already mentioned to
see if they give you what you want, or check out the Sperry add-on to see if
it gives you what you want. After rummaging around in one drawer to
complain there are no can openers there, perhaps it's time to rummage
through a different drawer.
From: Prof Wonmug on 11 May 2010 23:56
On Tue, 11 May 2010 13:56:28 -0500, VanguardLH <V(a)nguard.LH> wrote:

>Prof Wonmug wrote:
>
>> Wow. Sorry to have gotten under your skin like that. I hope I didn't
>> ruin your whole day. ;-)
>
>It seemed you were lambasting the same folks that were trying to help you.
>Despite that it might not be an answer you like doesn't alter that it might
>be the correct answer. Like the tale goes about the child wanting to know
>why God didn't answer his prayers, the answer was "Sometimes God says No".
>Sometimes you just can't get what you want and No is the correct answer.
>You don't like the answer but it is the answer. Don't shoot the messenger.
>
>As far as the "advanced" search goes in Outlook, yep, it isn't as advanced
>as you want or as many users wish. I think that's why Microsoft spent their
>time on a search tool that works inside as well as outside of Outlook
>because the same need for a better search was also needed in their other
>Office components, in the Windows file system, and for other common 3rd
>party apps. I just haven't gotten to the point of needing a search engine.
>I come close sometimes and decide to do some trials but end up deciding not
>to use any. In my last trial over half a year ago, and out of Windows
>Search, Google Desktop, and Copernic, I decided to stick with further
>trialing of Copernic; however, my wants are different than yours so I don't
>know if Copernic would satify you wants. They're all free so you could
>which one you like best for yourself.
>
>> I'm not asking for a feature. I realize that no one here has any
>> ability to influence the product. I merely asked if it could do what
>> most competent search facilities can do. When I was told that it
>> can't, I commented on yet another of the many inadequacies of the
>> "products" from Redmond. That's when the apologists came out of the
>> woodwork. Not nice to criticize Microsoft.
>
>There are always inadequacies in every software product, in every hardware
>product, in your television, in your laundry washer, with your car, in your
>house, in your expertise of your native language, in your musical talent,
>especially when others gets involved that wants to make use of those.
>Microsoft already knew that and made extensible their Office components. So
>the real problem lies with users that realize that an Office component is
>extensible but then don't do anything about it and are unwilling to search
>or pay for someone else's work for an extension. God said No but that
>doesn't stop you from making it happen. Whether you do or not really
>depends on just how important was your need. I'd like my lawn to be more
>flat to make it prettier and easier to mow but I lack a strong enough desire
>to bother digging up my lawn, tilling the soil, grading it, and then
>re-sodding it. It could happen, I'd like the results, but I'm not willing
>to put in the effort. That Outlook is extensible to do what you want
>doesn't mean that you or someone else took the time to do it.
>
>> I also made a couple of comments about the pathetic lack of
>> comprehension by some of the difference between the internal structure
>> of the Outlook folders and the external representation. As far as I
>> can tell, msot of the commentators still do not comprehend that. Oh,
>> well.
>
>That probably came about because many users do confuse the tree hierarchy
>and items inside Outlook's message store as the *same* as folders and files
>within the OS file system and expect to make similar actions against them.
>Yes, there are underlying definitions regarding the structures of each but
>they are completely different structures with different attributes and
>different methods of access and manipulation. One is Greek, the other is
>Russian, both built atop of linguistic structures and which have some
>commonality below the grammatical syntax, and both can perhaps speak very
>well but not to each other.
>
>I haven't used the Windows Search in a long time (and when I did it was just
>a very short trial). I suspect it will dig into Outlook's message store
>just as well as it digs into the OS file system looking for items/files and
>cataloging their contents.
>
>> The Office division is the poor step-child at Microsoft. That's where
>> they send the developers who can't cut it in the OS divisions. But you
>> continue to tell anyone who voices a contrary opinion to sit down and
>> shut up.
>
>As I recall over the years, the Word and Windows divisions were too close
>and caused concern at Microsoft about anti-trust lawsuits from the gov't
>because of undocumented features in Windows being used by Word. So
>Microsoft took pains to keep those divisions separate and non-communicative.
>Of course, over the years and without any pressure to do othewise, it is
>possible they grew closer again. I don't believe those divisions are as
>close as you want them to be. Also, the expertise to develop code for an
>enterprise-level document processor (Word) is probably significantly
>different than the expertise for an OS programmer. Just because you do one
>doesn't mean you can do the other well (and in today's employment market
>there would be no need to "save" on manpower by moving workers around to
>jobs they aren't any more capable of doing than a new-hire that can do the
>job but works for cheaper than the worker that has seniority).
>
>I doubt anything at Microsoft happens the way you describe. Again, this is
>you salving your wound (about not having the feature you want) rather than
>knowing the real cause of perceived injury. It doesn't help your situation
>to make up stories that satisfy your striking out at someone that doesn't
>give you what you want.
>
>You probably now need to go trial the search engines already mentioned to
>see if they give you what you want, or check out the Sperry add-on to see if
>it gives you what you want. After rummaging around in one drawer to
>complain there are no can openers there, perhaps it's time to rummage
>through a different drawer.

So you agree with the Outlook developers that the search facility
should *NOT* return the complete path?

Just curious..
From: VanguardLH on 12 May 2010 03:54
Prof Wonmug wrote:

> On Tue, 11 May 2010 13:56:28 -0500, VanguardLH <V(a)nguard.LH> wrote:
>
>>Prof Wonmug wrote:
>>
>>> Wow. Sorry to have gotten under your skin like that. I hope I didn't
>>> ruin your whole day. ;-)
>>
>>It seemed you were lambasting the same folks that were trying to help you.
>>Despite that it might not be an answer you like doesn't alter that it might
>>be the correct answer. Like the tale goes about the child wanting to know
>>why God didn't answer his prayers, the answer was "Sometimes God says No".
>>Sometimes you just can't get what you want and No is the correct answer.
>>You don't like the answer but it is the answer. Don't shoot the messenger.
>>
>>As far as the "advanced" search goes in Outlook, yep, it isn't as advanced
>>as you want or as many users wish. I think that's why Microsoft spent their
>>time on a search tool that works inside as well as outside of Outlook
>>because the same need for a better search was also needed in their other
>>Office components, in the Windows file system, and for other common 3rd
>>party apps. I just haven't gotten to the point of needing a search engine.
>>I come close sometimes and decide to do some trials but end up deciding not
>>to use any. In my last trial over half a year ago, and out of Windows
>>Search, Google Desktop, and Copernic, I decided to stick with further
>>trialing of Copernic; however, my wants are different than yours so I don't
>>know if Copernic would satify you wants. They're all free so you could
>>which one you like best for yourself.
>>
>>> I'm not asking for a feature. I realize that no one here has any
>>> ability to influence the product. I merely asked if it could do what
>>> most competent search facilities can do. When I was told that it
>>> can't, I commented on yet another of the many inadequacies of the
>>> "products" from Redmond. That's when the apologists came out of the
>>> woodwork. Not nice to criticize Microsoft.
>>
>>There are always inadequacies in every software product, in every hardware
>>product, in your television, in your laundry washer, with your car, in your
>>house, in your expertise of your native language, in your musical talent,
>>especially when others gets involved that wants to make use of those.
>>Microsoft already knew that and made extensible their Office components. So
>>the real problem lies with users that realize that an Office component is
>>extensible but then don't do anything about it and are unwilling to search
>>or pay for someone else's work for an extension. God said No but that
>>doesn't stop you from making it happen. Whether you do or not really
>>depends on just how important was your need. I'd like my lawn to be more
>>flat to make it prettier and easier to mow but I lack a strong enough desire
>>to bother digging up my lawn, tilling the soil, grading it, and then
>>re-sodding it. It could happen, I'd like the results, but I'm not willing
>>to put in the effort. That Outlook is extensible to do what you want
>>doesn't mean that you or someone else took the time to do it.
>>
>>> I also made a couple of comments about the pathetic lack of
>>> comprehension by some of the difference between the internal structure
>>> of the Outlook folders and the external representation. As far as I
>>> can tell, msot of the commentators still do not comprehend that. Oh,
>>> well.
>>
>>That probably came about because many users do confuse the tree hierarchy
>>and items inside Outlook's message store as the *same* as folders and files
>>within the OS file system and expect to make similar actions against them.
>>Yes, there are underlying definitions regarding the structures of each but
>>they are completely different structures with different attributes and
>>different methods of access and manipulation. One is Greek, the other is
>>Russian, both built atop of linguistic structures and which have some
>>commonality below the grammatical syntax, and both can perhaps speak very
>>well but not to each other.
>>
>>I haven't used the Windows Search in a long time (and when I did it was just
>>a very short trial). I suspect it will dig into Outlook's message store
>>just as well as it digs into the OS file system looking for items/files and
>>cataloging their contents.
>>
>>> The Office division is the poor step-child at Microsoft. That's where
>>> they send the developers who can't cut it in the OS divisions. But you
>>> continue to tell anyone who voices a contrary opinion to sit down and
>>> shut up.
>>
>>As I recall over the years, the Word and Windows divisions were too close
>>and caused concern at Microsoft about anti-trust lawsuits from the gov't
>>because of undocumented features in Windows being used by Word. So
>>Microsoft took pains to keep those divisions separate and non-communicative.
>>Of course, over the years and without any pressure to do othewise, it is
>>possible they grew closer again. I don't believe those divisions are as
>>close as you want them to be. Also, the expertise to develop code for an
>>enterprise-level document processor (Word) is probably significantly
>>different than the expertise for an OS programmer. Just because you do one
>>doesn't mean you can do the other well (and in today's employment market
>>there would be no need to "save" on manpower by moving workers around to
>>jobs they aren't any more capable of doing than a new-hire that can do the
>>job but works for cheaper than the worker that has seniority).
>>
>>I doubt anything at Microsoft happens the way you describe. Again, this is
>>you salving your wound (about not having the feature you want) rather than
>>knowing the real cause of perceived injury. It doesn't help your situation
>>to make up stories that satisfy your striking out at someone that doesn't
>>give you what you want.
>>
>>You probably now need to go trial the search engines already mentioned to
>>see if they give you what you want, or check out the Sperry add-on to see if
>>it gives you what you want. After rummaging around in one drawer to
>>complain there are no can openers there, perhaps it's time to rummage
>>through a different drawer.
>
> So you agree with the Outlook developers that the search facility
> should *NOT* return the complete path?
>
> Just curious..

No, I'm saying it looks like Microsoft too a bigger view and solved the
search deficiencies in MORE than just Outlook.
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Faxing over the network
Next: Microsoft Responds to the Evolution of Online Communities