Re: OT: Is it me?
- From: SkippyPB <swiegand@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 11:57:54 -0500
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 10:19:22 +1300, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> enlightened us:
>
>It wasn't my intention to start a Browser war, Steve :-)
>
>I feel the problem I had was entirely my own and no real fault of the
>software. I've also used Netscape and it has just as many options.
>
>The problem was in my mental approach to the problem... I didn't think it
>through because I decided it was pretty trivial. If I had thought about it I
>should have realised that the first place to look would be the View menu...
>
>I like Outlook because I'm used to it and it works fine for me. If I got
>used to Netscape I'd probably like that just as much.
>
>I have also experimented with Mozilla Firefox and I really like that, (it
>does seem to be very stable and is more user friendly in the messages it
>gives you), but there is a degree of inertia that I would have to overcome
>touse one Browser at work, and a different one at home.
>
I've been using MS-Outlook for over 15 years and still don't like it!
On my personal computer I use Agent for Usenet and Eudora Pro for
Email. I used to use Netscape almost exclusively for browsing but the
last few releases left me unsatisfied. So I've switched to FireFox
and like it a lot. Of course, because I have Windows on my computer,
I have to have Internet Explorer as well, but I never use it unless I
run across a page that just doesn't work with Firefox. On my work
computer once again we have no choice and have to use IE.
I guess my point is familiarity doesn't always lead to affection :)
>It is simpler for me to use one Browser. I guess I'm just not passionately
>anti-MS.
>
Well I'm not sure I'm passionately anti-MS but I was very happy with
DOS :)
>Pete.
>
>
>"SkippyPB" <swiegand@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:6ocis1ts0uq7ojp15tmj8kpjnrahiij8l0@xxxxxxxxxx
>> On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 14:31:38 +1300, "Pete Dashwood"
>> <dashwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> enlightened us:
>>
>>>I'm an IT professional. Worked in the game all my working life (almost,
>>>and
>>>discounting various jobs done as a student, teacher training, and in out
>>>of
>>>the way places on the planet where they didn't have electricity, let alone
>>>computers...), 40 years. Without being immodest, I consider myself
>>>competent, and over the years, people have paid considerable sums of money
>>>to get my opinion on things IT, and help them solve problems.
>>>
>>>So, when I noticed that one thread in this forum was getting pretty long
>>>and
>>>it was becoming tedious to have to scroll down it to find unread messages,
>>>I
>>>decided: "No problem, I can deal with this..." (I'm sure many of you have
>>>thought exactly the same words, about two milliseconds before the house of
>>>cards came falling down.... :-))
>>>
>>>I decided a good way would be to get Outlook to simply delete all messages
>>>more than one month old. (You can see I gave a great deal of thought to
>>>this...). What if I need to reference an older message? No problem; GOOGLE
>>>Groups archives all the dribble we write here, and it is enshrined for
>>>future generations (I'd love to know what they make of it in say, 500
>>>years... :-)) OK, safe to put a rule based filter into Outlook Newsgroups.
>>>Looked up the Help... did it.(About 30 minutes all up... I don't rush, and
>>>consider each step carefully when going into "unexplored territory" (i.e.
>>>stuff I haven't done before)).
>>>
>>>Took another look at the thread. Sure enough, all the messages older than
>>>30
>>>days were removed. But there were so many posts, it STILL got pretty
>>>tiring
>>>on the eyes scrolling down it and looking for the ones in bold print...
>>>
>>>Now, I have learned (and I remember trivia like this), that if I press
>>>control/T while in a topic, it marks all messages in that thread as read.
>>>(This is useful when I read a message in a thread and decide I REALLY
>>>don't
>>>want to participate...). Surely there has to be a Ctrl key combination
>>>that
>>>will simply move to the next UNREAD message in the thread...? Searched
>>>Help... Nope. Can't see one. Tried Help from a different angle and Hey!
>>>Presto!
>>>
>>>There is an option on the View menu that lets you see ONLY unread
>>>messages... Took all of 2 seconds to implement. :-) I can flick it on and
>>>off as necessary, so if I want to read "context" message which I have
>>>previously read, again, no problem.
>>>
>>>I am posting this here because there are a number of interesting
>>>conclusions
>>>to be drawn:
>>>
>>>1. Nothing is ever easy. (If it is, as in this case, a highly paid
>>>consultant will make it difficult...:-))
>>>2. Even simple, user friendly, GUI based software like Outlook, has so
>>>many
>>>options you can't know them all. [I guess, if I had ever been on an
>>>Outlook
>>>course - has anybody? - they would have gone through ALL the options on
>>>ALL
>>>the menus. Unfortunately, the thought of paying good money to have that
>>>kind
>>>of tedium inflicted on me, makes me decide to do it myself...In
>>>retrospect,
>>>this might not always be a good decision. I'll be looking at MS Project in
>>>a
>>>new light on Monday and may allocate 10 minutes a day (that's about all I
>>>can stand at any one time) to explore specific menus and options that I
>>>don't use.]
>>>3. Even smart people sometimes do stupid things. There is no monopoly on
>>>foolishness, or being excluded from it.
>>>4. When designing simple, user friendly, GUI based software, make sure the
>>>Help file is fully indexed and useful. (I have actually spent more time
>>>writing Help for some components, than I spent in actually developing
>>>them.)
>>>
>>>Experience may be the best teacher, but her fees can be very high...
>>>
>>>Pete.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Unfortunately my employer insists that we use MS-Outlook for our
>> email. I hate it. Most of my colleagues hate it. None of us have it
>> on our personal computers. We call it MS-Lookout (cause you're never
>> really sure what it is going to do). Others call it MS-Outhouse. As
>> much as I dislike it for email, I can't imagine trying to use it for
>> usenet. It is, as I think Pete discovered, not intuitive in its use
>> nor logical nor user friendly. And let's not even get into security
>> features/safeguards.
>>
>> I guess I'd say if you have a choice, choose something else.
>>
Regards,
////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-
"Start every day with a smile and get it over with."
-- W.C. Fields
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Remove nospam to email me.
Steve
.
- References:
- OT: Is it me?
- From: Pete Dashwood
- Re: OT: Is it me?
- From: SkippyPB
- Re: OT: Is it me?
- From: Pete Dashwood
- OT: Is it me?
- Prev by Date: Re: OT: Is it me?
- Next by Date: Re: free implementation? factorial?
- Previous by thread: Re: OT: Is it me?
- Next by thread: Re: OT: Is it me?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
