Re: Microsoft Outlook Web Access
- From: "James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 23:05:02 -0600
Charles Hottel wrote:
"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:6k5t5sF68prhU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxIn the context of the above, Net Express from the IDE Menus allows you to use 'Type Library Assistant' which is a huge file. I've only referenced it out of curiosity, so my usage was very superficial. It lists quite a lot of the popular OLE stuff so the complete MS Office Suite appears there and you pick on Access or Excel etc as appropriate.
"Charles Hottel" <chottel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:FLadnWjGKZ_-LUDVnZ2dnUVZ_tPinZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I thought Microsoft hired only 'the best' programmers. You always hear of the hard questions that they ask job applicants.
OO programming and .NET are supposed to be the cat's meow, just ask Pete Dashwood.
I meant this only as light humor which obviously failed and struck a nerve.
I may soon dicover how I like C# for myself. Components in Java seem more awkward than what you have shown us with C# and I want to get some experience with them. It appears I will never get to use Java at work. The projects using it are way behind schedule and I will most likely be retired before my system is done.
I take no responsibility for MS (or anybody else's) programming. OO is a great paradigm that allows systems to be built from components and .NET, in my experience is a level playing field. I think that's all I've ever claimed, Charlie.
Please don't vent your frustration and petulance on me; how you deal with your computer is not my problem.
I was directing it Microsoft and not at you. I am not really questioning the tools. I am just saying that even the best tools can be used poorly. I guess that is obvious. It is just frustrating when they are used so badly and so inconsistently.
So what did the best programmers with the best tools produce? Let's see.
The inbox and other directories have a number in parentheses next to them indicating the number of unread emails. If you delete an email without reading it, the number is not decremented. If you delete them all it still is not decremented.
Funny, it is when I do it. I'm running Outlook with Office 2003. NOT Outlook Express, the full version.
That is what I use at home and I do not have any of the problems I mentioned, with it, only with the Web Access version that I use at work. At work I have no choice over what software is installed.
Sometimes when you delete an email it gives a error message (I have seen two different ones) that idicates it cannot delete the email. After a while the email disappears, i.e. is deleted an is sent to the Deleted Items.
Perhaps a background task was blocking access or your CPU was doing other stuff. Next time, try checking Task Manager.
When you right click on the Deleted Items directory and select delete all, sometimes it says it can't delete them, but you can select them and delete them one at a time.
I have never had occasion to delete the deleted items directory entries, letting Outlook do it automatically at the close of session. I DO delete the junk mail entries after having a quick look to make sure there are none form people I want to communicate with (there seldom are...) and I do it by pressing Ctrl/A to select everything in the directory, and then Delete. It has never failed to work.
When I delete an email from the Inbox it goes into Deleted Items. Later on I want to clear out that folder. Sometimes it does it, sometimes it fails but I can delete them one at a time. It does not clear out the folder automatically when I exit the program. Perhaps this is an option I can set, but I prefer to do it manually in case there are items I am still unsure about removing permanently.
For reasons best not gone into, I receive a lot of emails that I need to delete. For example I went to lunch with an empty inbox and when I returned I had 35 emails to delete. I thought I could select a range and then right click and delete them all with a single click. Silly me. When I held down the Shift key and clicked on the end of the range, what did appear to my wondering eyes, but 35 open windows, one for each email. What progress as I now had to close 35 windows plus delete 35 emails. I would have preferred seeing eight reindeer with jolly ols Saint Nick.
This is documented behaviour and allows people to open multiple mails simultaneously. Perhaps you need to take another look at using Outlook, or, if you don't like that idea, avail yourself of one of the many excellent third party mail readers which are available. I can recommend Eudora... used it for years. However, I do like Outlook better.
Again I have no choice about using this software. No training was offerred on it. Perhaps I can use Help to figure out how to do what I want.
My real complaint here is that my past experience with Window Explorer and MS Outlook 2003, does not carry over to this Web Access Outlook. The same procedure of mouse click and key strokes work consistently in Explorer and Outlook 2003 and I believe in most if not all Windows programs, but they produce different results in the Web Access Outllook. I believe this violate the 'spirit' of Windows programming. I felt the same way in the past when we used Lotus Notes which also responded differently from WIndows programs I was used to. I guess programmers always feel they have a better way and I can undestand that, but as a user I prefer more consistency.
You can print a couple of options for each piece of software, but rush out quick and buy a new cartridge before your printer stops for lack of paper or cartridge ink ! MANY of the OO methods for Office Suite are common with identical parameters - so yes you automatically get that consistency that you are looking for. And of course these are what Pete would refer to as components. Write once, test it for cleanliness and run with other applications.
Conclusion: Bad or sloppy programming easily overcomes good tools. The OO paradigm is no silver bullet. MS Outlook Web access sucks.
Now something must be truly going wrong at MS - and from various people, many non-computer geeks, and Pete is hesitant, MS Vista is an arch STINKER. Microsoft didn't start yesterday using OO and even though Vista *might* have different design concepts from its immediate predecessor, it seems to me they should have been able to refactor (salvage) a whole slough of methods for re-use in Vista.
Did you ever read any of the web articles about the attempted take-over of Yahoo ? Anonymously, some of the Microsoft staff were absolutely vitriolic, and close to slander if Balmer could get his hands on the originators. They were in two schools of thought,
(a) Those who just thought Yahoo was a bad idea and didn't gel with the Microsoft philosophy. There I think back to the department store group I was Systems Manger for in UK who took over a family owned supermarket group - it was a disaster.
(b) The second group were the ones who did most of the slagging, "dishonest, crooks, useless..." and other adjectival compliments. They were also very naive. They hoped that MS would buy out Yahoo so that they could get jobs at Yahoo away from the pernicious university in Bellingham. Dream on - did they think Balmer was going to give them carte blanche to do their own thing.
No, I don't keep a watching brief on this stuff. The web being what it is, I just tripped over the above messages.
Jimmy
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Microsoft Outlook Web Access
- From: Pete Dashwood
- Re: Microsoft Outlook Web Access
- References:
- OT: Microsoft Outlook Web Access
- From: Charles Hottel
- Re: Microsoft Outlook Web Access
- From: Pete Dashwood
- Re: Microsoft Outlook Web Access
- From: Charles Hottel
- OT: Microsoft Outlook Web Access
- Prev by Date: Re: Here's one problem
- Next by Date: note to Charles Hottel
- Previous by thread: Re: Microsoft Outlook Web Access
- Next by thread: Re: Microsoft Outlook Web Access
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
