What is the point?

What is the point of choosing a file for a folder picture, which is recorded
in desktop.ini in said folder, only to have the desktop explorer repeatedly
forget it?

Once upon a time, there was the Exchange group at Microsoft. They created a
very nice email/messaging server. Unfortunately, they also thought they
could create a client (the Exchange Client) for accessing email. The
Exchange client was pretty bad.

Then, the Office group said "We can create a better client for email".
Thus, the Outlook client was born, and the Exchange client died a quiet
death. The Exchange group did not like this, but they accepted the fact that
their skills were best applied to the back end.

Office group, if you are listening, please create a competing desktop
explorer, that will remember folder settings. The OS Group will take issue
with this, but, eventually, they will accept the fact that they do not have a
clue as to how to write a decent shell. Hell, you can even attach a price to
it. If it is better, people will purchase it.

Doc

Oh, and just consider for a moment that not everything needs tags and ratings.

Doc

"Dr. Strangelove" wrote:

> What is the point of choosing a file for a folder picture, which is recorded
> in desktop.ini in said folder, only to have the desktop explorer repeatedly
> forget it?
>
> Once upon a time, there was the Exchange group at Microsoft. They created a
> very nice email/messaging server. Unfortunately, they also thought they
> could create a client (the Exchange Client) for accessing email. The
> Exchange client was pretty bad.
>
> Then, the Office group said "We can create a better client for email".
> Thus, the Outlook client was born, and the Exchange client died a quiet
> death. The Exchange group did not like this, but they accepted the fact that
> their skills were best applied to the back end.
>
> Office group, if you are listening, please create a competing desktop
> explorer, that will remember folder settings. The OS Group will take issue
> with this, but, eventually, they will accept the fact that they do not have a
> clue as to how to write a decent shell. Hell, you can even attach a price to
> it. If it is better, people will purchase it.
>
> Doc

On Dec 17, 7:01 am, Dr. Strangelove
<DrStrangel...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> Oh, and just consider for a moment that not everything needs tags and ratings.

This confused me. Why do I want to rate my own stuff? That field
just seems completely pointless.

The folder view amnesia bothered the heck out of me. I got really
tired of opening any window, even stuff like Control Panel,and have it
in "random view of the hour" mode. Big icons, small icons, list view,
details, big window, tiny window.. This is one of those silly things
that made it all the way to RTM, and MS has no fix for it?

On Dec 17, 9:01 am, Dr. Strangelove
> Oh, and just consider for a moment that not everything needs tags and ratings.

Everything can use tags or ratings. Darned if I could not think of
more than 100 useful ways to tag and rate my assorted datas. What is
useless is presenting tags and ratings options (or at least seeming
to) on every file regardless of it supporting tags and/or ratings

Outlook didn't spring forth as a new program by the Office team. It *IS* the
old MS Exchange Client (which was in turn based on the old Win95 "Inbox"
program). All of its core dll's and programming model are rooted directly
and built upon the old MS Exchange Client. It's one of the reasons you
can't, for instance, have two Microsoft Exchange accounts in it, and all the
"MAPI" shortcomings (Contacts vs AddressBook vs Recipients anyone?) are
still in it today.

Something similar just happened with FrontPage becoming "Expression Web."
One look at its dialog boxes and quirks clues you in that's it just a
revamped (albeit well done) updated FrontPage.


"Dr. Strangelove" <> wrote in message
news84ED3FF-8B94-4E93-BD10-...
> What is the point of choosing a file for a folder picture, which is
> recorded
> in desktop.ini in said folder, only to have the desktop explorer
> repeatedly
> forget it?
>
> Once upon a time, there was the Exchange group at Microsoft. They created
> a
> very nice email/messaging server. Unfortunately, they also thought they
> could create a client (the Exchange Client) for accessing email. The
> Exchange client was pretty bad.
>
> Then, the Office group said "We can create a better client for email".
> Thus, the Outlook client was born, and the Exchange client died a quiet
> death. The Exchange group did not like this, but they accepted the fact
> that
> their skills were best applied to the back end.
>
> Office group, if you are listening, please create a competing desktop
> explorer, that will remember folder settings. The OS Group will take
> issue
> with this, but, eventually, they will accept the fact that they do not
> have a
> clue as to how to write a decent shell. Hell, you can even attach a price
> to
> it. If it is better, people will purchase it.
>
> Doc

Still, a good story, eh?

Seriously, the desktop explorer is hopeless. If the Office group were to
take control of it, things could only get better.

For the years of waiting for Vista (now believed to be the functional equal
of Windows ME), to have the desktop explorer become as bad as it is, is
pretty disappointing. Regardless of all of the features of Vista, ones first
experience is via the desktop explorer. A very bad welcome mat, indeed.

Doc

"CMoya" wrote:

> Outlook didn't spring forth as a new program by the Office team. It *IS* the
> old MS Exchange Client (which was in turn based on the old Win95 "Inbox"
> program). All of its core dll's and programming model are rooted directly
> and built upon the old MS Exchange Client. It's one of the reasons you
> can't, for instance, have two Microsoft Exchange accounts in it, and all the
> "MAPI" shortcomings (Contacts vs AddressBook vs Recipients anyone?) are
> still in it today.
>
> Something similar just happened with FrontPage becoming "Expression Web."
> One look at its dialog boxes and quirks clues you in that's it just a
> revamped (albeit well done) updated FrontPage.
>
>
> "Dr. Strangelove" <> wrote in message
> news84ED3FF-8B94-4E93-BD10-...
> > What is the point of choosing a file for a folder picture, which is
> > recorded
> > in desktop.ini in said folder, only to have the desktop explorer
> > repeatedly
> > forget it?
> >
> > Once upon a time, there was the Exchange group at Microsoft. They created
> > a
> > very nice email/messaging server. Unfortunately, they also thought they
> > could create a client (the Exchange Client) for accessing email. The
> > Exchange client was pretty bad.
> >
> > Then, the Office group said "We can create a better client for email".
> > Thus, the Outlook client was born, and the Exchange client died a quiet
> > death. The Exchange group did not like this, but they accepted the fact
> > that
> > their skills were best applied to the back end.
> >
> > Office group, if you are listening, please create a competing desktop
> > explorer, that will remember folder settings. The OS Group will take
> > issue
> > with this, but, eventually, they will accept the fact that they do not
> > have a
> > clue as to how to write a decent shell. Hell, you can even attach a price
> > to
> > it. If it is better, people will purchase it.
> >
> > Doc
>

I don't know about that. Despite all their polished finish, Office is by no
stretch an example of good interface. In fact, almost nobody uses any of it
to its potential because its interface is often so badly designed. How many
times have you seen documents filled with empty paragraphs and a bunch of
TABS (thus breaking widow/orphan control) because Word's unweildy interface
for using Paragraph Styles is unusable so most people don't use "Styles."
They break it even more in Word 2007 (which adds a whole new confusing
kludge for working with Styles). How about Excel's confusing Windows 3.1
rooted MDI (Multiple Document Interface) where most people don't "get" how
they can place two workbooks next to each other like they can so easily do
with Word. Outlook's non-standard icon in the system tray that behaves
completely different than EVERY program/application that puts an icon there.
How many times do people throughout the day close Outlook by accident...
thinking that little icon will stay there and they'll get their appointment
reminders and e-mail alerts? Plus, nobody uses Outlook to its full
potential. Nowadays it is *JUST* an e-mail client when once upon a time it
was suppossed to be so much more (Universal Inbox? not to mention
Collaboration?).

I agree that Vista's file Explorer isn't all that great (as it could have
been). But, please, keep the Office team far far away from the Windows
Shell. The Office teams excel's at SUPERFICAL polish... and that's all.

"Dr. Strangelove" <> wrote in message
news:8D7EEF9C-45DA-4E3D-81E3-...
> Still, a good story, eh?
>
> Seriously, the desktop explorer is hopeless. If the Office group were to
> take control of it, things could only get better.
>
> For the years of waiting for Vista (now believed to be the functional
> equal
> of Windows ME), to have the desktop explorer become as bad as it is, is
> pretty disappointing. Regardless of all of the features of Vista, ones
> first
> experience is via the desktop explorer. A very bad welcome mat, indeed.
>
> Doc
>
> "CMoya" wrote:
>
>> Outlook didn't spring forth as a new program by the Office team. It *IS*
>> the
>> old MS Exchange Client (which was in turn based on the old Win95 "Inbox"
>> program). All of its core dll's and programming model are rooted directly
>> and built upon the old MS Exchange Client. It's one of the reasons you
>> can't, for instance, have two Microsoft Exchange accounts in it, and all
>> the
>> "MAPI" shortcomings (Contacts vs AddressBook vs Recipients anyone?) are
>> still in it today.
>>
>> Something similar just happened with FrontPage becoming "Expression Web."
>> One look at its dialog boxes and quirks clues you in that's it just a
>> revamped (albeit well done) updated FrontPage.
>>
>>
>> "Dr. Strangelove" <> wrote in
>> message
>> news84ED3FF-8B94-4E93-BD10-...
>> > What is the point of choosing a file for a folder picture, which is
>> > recorded
>> > in desktop.ini in said folder, only to have the desktop explorer
>> > repeatedly
>> > forget it?
>> >
>> > Once upon a time, there was the Exchange group at Microsoft. They
>> > created
>> > a
>> > very nice email/messaging server. Unfortunately, they also thought
>> > they
>> > could create a client (the Exchange Client) for accessing email. The
>> > Exchange client was pretty bad.
>> >
>> > Then, the Office group said "We can create a better client for email".
>> > Thus, the Outlook client was born, and the Exchange client died a quiet
>> > death. The Exchange group did not like this, but they accepted the
>> > fact
>> > that
>> > their skills were best applied to the back end.
>> >
>> > Office group, if you are listening, please create a competing desktop
>> > explorer, that will remember folder settings. The OS Group will take
>> > issue
>> > with this, but, eventually, they will accept the fact that they do not
>> > have a
>> > clue as to how to write a decent shell. Hell, you can even attach a
>> > price
>> > to
>> > it. If it is better, people will purchase it.
>> >
>> > Doc
>>

Ok, we can certainly debate whether or not the Office group should have the
desktop explorer.

But, for the explorer to get as bad is it did, and to be RTM'd as it was, is
about as bad as it gets. With all of the claims of software engineering
models and MSF, and all of the claimed checkpoints by all of the members of
the development team, for a welcome mat to the flagship product, the desktop
explorer, with as many complaints and [valid] problems that it has, is pretty
pathetic.

If not the Office group, then who should be doing the desktop explorer? I
maintain a collection of catalogs, with thousands of images. When the
desktop explorer ignores my deliberate setting of a folder picture (to
identify the catalog), and it takes me 50 minutes to reset/re-establish the
pictures, it is very inconvenient.

I try to stay with a MS solution where possible, but the desktop explorer is
causing me to consider other alternatives.

So, who should do the explorer?

Doc

"CMoya" wrote:

> I don't know about that. Despite all their polished finish, Office is by no
> stretch an example of good interface. In fact, almost nobody uses any of it
> to its potential because its interface is often so badly designed. How many
> times have you seen documents filled with empty paragraphs and a bunch of
> TABS (thus breaking widow/orphan control) because Word's unweildy interface
> for using Paragraph Styles is unusable so most people don't use "Styles."
> They break it even more in Word 2007 (which adds a whole new confusing
> kludge for working with Styles). How about Excel's confusing Windows 3.1
> rooted MDI (Multiple Document Interface) where most people don't "get" how
> they can place two workbooks next to each other like they can so easily do
> with Word. Outlook's non-standard icon in the system tray that behaves
> completely different than EVERY program/application that puts an icon there.
> How many times do people throughout the day close Outlook by accident...
> thinking that little icon will stay there and they'll get their appointment
> reminders and e-mail alerts? Plus, nobody uses Outlook to its full
> potential. Nowadays it is *JUST* an e-mail client when once upon a time it
> was suppossed to be so much more (Universal Inbox? not to mention
> Collaboration?).
>
> I agree that Vista's file Explorer isn't all that great (as it could have
> been). But, please, keep the Office team far far away from the Windows
> Shell. The Office teams excel's at SUPERFICAL polish... and that's all.
>
> "Dr. Strangelove" <> wrote in message
> news:8D7EEF9C-45DA-4E3D-81E3-...
> > Still, a good story, eh?
> >
> > Seriously, the desktop explorer is hopeless. If the Office group were to
> > take control of it, things could only get better.
> >
> > For the years of waiting for Vista (now believed to be the functional
> > equal
> > of Windows ME), to have the desktop explorer become as bad as it is, is
> > pretty disappointing. Regardless of all of the features of Vista, ones
> > first
> > experience is via the desktop explorer. A very bad welcome mat, indeed.
> >
> > Doc
> >
> > "CMoya" wrote:
> >
> >> Outlook didn't spring forth as a new program by the Office team. It *IS*
> >> the
> >> old MS Exchange Client (which was in turn based on the old Win95 "Inbox"
> >> program). All of its core dll's and programming model are rooted directly
> >> and built upon the old MS Exchange Client. It's one of the reasons you
> >> can't, for instance, have two Microsoft Exchange accounts in it, and all
> >> the
> >> "MAPI" shortcomings (Contacts vs AddressBook vs Recipients anyone?) are
> >> still in it today.
> >>
> >> Something similar just happened with FrontPage becoming "Expression Web."
> >> One look at its dialog boxes and quirks clues you in that's it just a
> >> revamped (albeit well done) updated FrontPage.
> >>
> >>
> >> "Dr. Strangelove" <> wrote in
> >> message
> >> news84ED3FF-8B94-4E93-BD10-...
> >> > What is the point of choosing a file for a folder picture, which is
> >> > recorded
> >> > in desktop.ini in said folder, only to have the desktop explorer
> >> > repeatedly
> >> > forget it?
> >> >
> >> > Once upon a time, there was the Exchange group at Microsoft. They
> >> > created
> >> > a
> >> > very nice email/messaging server. Unfortunately, they also thought
> >> > they
> >> > could create a client (the Exchange Client) for accessing email. The
> >> > Exchange client was pretty bad.
> >> >
> >> > Then, the Office group said "We can create a better client for email".
> >> > Thus, the Outlook client was born, and the Exchange client died a quiet
> >> > death. The Exchange group did not like this, but they accepted the
> >> > fact
> >> > that
> >> > their skills were best applied to the back end.
> >> >
> >> > Office group, if you are listening, please create a competing desktop
> >> > explorer, that will remember folder settings. The OS Group will take
> >> > issue
> >> > with this, but, eventually, they will accept the fact that they do not
> >> > have a
> >> > clue as to how to write a decent shell. Hell, you can even attach a
> >> > price
> >> > to
> >> > it. If it is better, people will purchase it.
> >> >
> >> > Doc
> >>
>

It's not so much "who" or "what team"... it's that Microsoft has for several
years now been in dire need of a single person or team with a philosophy
*directing* their projects' user interface and fit and finish. A "guru"...
with veto power now only enjoyed by Marketing. A Steve Jobs of sorts (I
don't care to get into a debate about the shortcomings of MacOS... but no
one can argue that a great design philosophy drives their products).
Marketing Dept at MS can still drive core functionality, but Marketing Dept
needs to be put in their place at Microsoft. They've been steering the ship
for way too long now.

I've been a huge MS fan for years. But their attention to detail has
suffered big time recently. The rise of inexperienced project managers
repeating the same mistakes of the past I think is to blame for this.

Having said that... Vista is pretty good. And performance-wise (on my 2gb
machine) it outperforms WinXP by a lot (meaning its noticeably much much
faster than WinXP was on my machine). Explorer has never been all that
fantastic... so I guess I didn't expect anything awesome this time around.
But, as a whole, Vista IMHO does rock.


"Dr. Strangelove" <> wrote in message
news:87CC31FE-D4DF-4A4F-BC17-...
> Ok, we can certainly debate whether or not the Office group should have
> the
> desktop explorer.
>
> But, for the explorer to get as bad is it did, and to be RTM'd as it was,
> is
> about as bad as it gets. With all of the claims of software engineering
> models and MSF, and all of the claimed checkpoints by all of the members
> of
> the development team, for a welcome mat to the flagship product, the
> desktop
> explorer, with as many complaints and [valid] problems that it has, is
> pretty
> pathetic.
>
> If not the Office group, then who should be doing the desktop explorer? I
> maintain a collection of catalogs, with thousands of images. When the
> desktop explorer ignores my deliberate setting of a folder picture (to
> identify the catalog), and it takes me 50 minutes to reset/re-establish
> the
> pictures, it is very inconvenient.
>
> I try to stay with a MS solution where possible, but the desktop explorer
> is
> causing me to consider other alternatives.
>
> So, who should do the explorer?
>
> Doc
>
> "CMoya" wrote:
>
>> I don't know about that. Despite all their polished finish, Office is by
>> no
>> stretch an example of good interface. In fact, almost nobody uses any of
>> it
>> to its potential because its interface is often so badly designed. How
>> many
>> times have you seen documents filled with empty paragraphs and a bunch of
>> TABS (thus breaking widow/orphan control) because Word's unweildy
>> interface
>> for using Paragraph Styles is unusable so most people don't use "Styles."
>> They break it even more in Word 2007 (which adds a whole new confusing
>> kludge for working with Styles). How about Excel's confusing Windows 3.1
>> rooted MDI (Multiple Document Interface) where most people don't "get"
>> how
>> they can place two workbooks next to each other like they can so easily
>> do
>> with Word. Outlook's non-standard icon in the system tray that behaves
>> completely different than EVERY program/application that puts an icon
>> there.
>> How many times do people throughout the day close Outlook by accident...
>> thinking that little icon will stay there and they'll get their
>> appointment
>> reminders and e-mail alerts? Plus, nobody uses Outlook to its full
>> potential. Nowadays it is *JUST* an e-mail client when once upon a time
>> it
>> was suppossed to be so much more (Universal Inbox? not to mention
>> Collaboration?).
>>
>> I agree that Vista's file Explorer isn't all that great (as it could have
>> been). But, please, keep the Office team far far away from the Windows
>> Shell. The Office teams excel's at SUPERFICAL polish... and that's all.
>>
>> "Dr. Strangelove" <> wrote in
>> message
>> news:8D7EEF9C-45DA-4E3D-81E3-...
>> > Still, a good story, eh?
>> >
>> > Seriously, the desktop explorer is hopeless. If the Office group were
>> > to
>> > take control of it, things could only get better.
>> >
>> > For the years of waiting for Vista (now believed to be the functional
>> > equal
>> > of Windows ME), to have the desktop explorer become as bad as it is, is
>> > pretty disappointing. Regardless of all of the features of Vista, ones
>> > first
>> > experience is via the desktop explorer. A very bad welcome mat,
>> > indeed.
>> >
>> > Doc
>> >
>> > "CMoya" wrote:
>> >
>> >> Outlook didn't spring forth as a new program by the Office team. It
>> >> *IS*
>> >> the
>> >> old MS Exchange Client (which was in turn based on the old Win95
>> >> "Inbox"
>> >> program). All of its core dll's and programming model are rooted
>> >> directly
>> >> and built upon the old MS Exchange Client. It's one of the reasons you
>> >> can't, for instance, have two Microsoft Exchange accounts in it, and
>> >> all
>> >> the
>> >> "MAPI" shortcomings (Contacts vs AddressBook vs Recipients anyone?)
>> >> are
>> >> still in it today.
>> >>
>> >> Something similar just happened with FrontPage becoming "Expression
>> >> Web."
>> >> One look at its dialog boxes and quirks clues you in that's it just a
>> >> revamped (albeit well done) updated FrontPage.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Dr. Strangelove" <> wrote in
>> >> message
>> >> news84ED3FF-8B94-4E93-BD10-...
>> >> > What is the point of choosing a file for a folder picture, which is
>> >> > recorded
>> >> > in desktop.ini in said folder, only to have the desktop explorer
>> >> > repeatedly
>> >> > forget it?
>> >> >
>> >> > Once upon a time, there was the Exchange group at Microsoft. They
>> >> > created
>> >> > a
>> >> > very nice email/messaging server. Unfortunately, they also thought
>> >> > they
>> >> > could create a client (the Exchange Client) for accessing email.
>> >> > The
>> >> > Exchange client was pretty bad.
>> >> >
>> >> > Then, the Office group said "We can create a better client for
>> >> > email".
>> >> > Thus, the Outlook client was born, and the Exchange client died a
>> >> > quiet
>> >> > death. The Exchange group did not like this, but they accepted the
>> >> > fact
>> >> > that
>> >> > their skills were best applied to the back end.
>> >> >
>> >> > Office group, if you are listening, please create a competing
>> >> > desktop
>> >> > explorer, that will remember folder settings. The OS Group will
>> >> > take
>> >> > issue
>> >> > with this, but, eventually, they will accept the fact that they do
>> >> > not
>> >> > have a
>> >> > clue as to how to write a decent shell. Hell, you can even attach a
>> >> > price
>> >> > to
>> >> > it. If it is better, people will purchase it.
>> >> >
>> >> > Doc
>> >>
>>

> Marketing Dept at MS can still drive core functionality, but Marketing
> Dept needs to be put in their place at Microsoft. They've been steering
> the ship for way too long now.

Hi,

I don't know if that's how marketing works at MS, but I do know that it's a
convenient excuse for putting all blames to marketing and sales and anyone
else but R&D.

In my limited experience, the root cause could be totally different, and in
many cases, the design flaws were made by R&D who insisted that they knew
everything in the world and knew how a user would use the product. You
don't have to look far, and in this and similar newsgroups, you could find
more than enough examples for such a mindset. In reality, R&D usually is
disconnected to the real world, and they don't have time, skills, and
training to know how the market and consumers would think and work.

And even it's marketing's fault for incorrect functionalities, who are going
to be responsible for the implementation errors, such as why copying and
pasting files will be so slow for some but not all?

So instead of pointing fingers to each other, let's just hope the company
will fix whatever problems they have. When a product has problems, the
problems are for ALL in the company to solve.

My two cents.




"CMoya" <> wrote in message
news:BDDCF77F-4E11-4445-92C5-...
> It's not so much "who" or "what team"... it's that Microsoft has for
> several years now been in dire need of a single person or team with a
> philosophy *directing* their projects' user interface and fit and finish.
> A "guru"... with veto power now only enjoyed by Marketing. A Steve Jobs of
> sorts (I don't care to get into a debate about the shortcomings of
> MacOS... but no one can argue that a great design philosophy drives their
> products). Marketing Dept at MS can still drive core functionality, but
> Marketing Dept needs to be put in their place at Microsoft. They've been
> steering the ship for way too long now.
>
> I've been a huge MS fan for years. But their attention to detail has
> suffered big time recently. The rise of inexperienced project managers
> repeating the same mistakes of the past I think is to blame for this.
>
> Having said that... Vista is pretty good. And performance-wise (on my 2gb
> machine) it outperforms WinXP by a lot (meaning its noticeably much much
> faster than WinXP was on my machine). Explorer has never been all that
> fantastic... so I guess I didn't expect anything awesome this time around.
> But, as a whole, Vista IMHO does rock.
>
>
> "Dr. Strangelove" <> wrote in
> message news:87CC31FE-D4DF-4A4F-BC17-...
>> Ok, we can certainly debate whether or not the Office group should have
>> the
>> desktop explorer.
>>
>> But, for the explorer to get as bad is it did, and to be RTM'd as it was,
>> is
>> about as bad as it gets. With all of the claims of software engineering
>> models and MSF, and all of the claimed checkpoints by all of the members
>> of
>> the development team, for a welcome mat to the flagship product, the
>> desktop
>> explorer, with as many complaints and [valid] problems that it has, is
>> pretty
>> pathetic.
>>
>> If not the Office group, then who should be doing the desktop explorer?
>> I
>> maintain a collection of catalogs, with thousands of images. When the
>> desktop explorer ignores my deliberate setting of a folder picture (to
>> identify the catalog), and it takes me 50 minutes to reset/re-establish
>> the
>> pictures, it is very inconvenient.
>>
>> I try to stay with a MS solution where possible, but the desktop explorer
>> is
>> causing me to consider other alternatives.
>>
>> So, who should do the explorer?
>>
>> Doc
>>
>> "CMoya" wrote:
>>
>>> I don't know about that. Despite all their polished finish, Office is by
>>> no
>>> stretch an example of good interface. In fact, almost nobody uses any of
>>> it
>>> to its potential because its interface is often so badly designed. How
>>> many
>>> times have you seen documents filled with empty paragraphs and a bunch
>>> of
>>> TABS (thus breaking widow/orphan control) because Word's unweildy
>>> interface
>>> for using Paragraph Styles is unusable so most people don't use
>>> "Styles."
>>> They break it even more in Word 2007 (which adds a whole new confusing
>>> kludge for working with Styles). How about Excel's confusing Windows 3.1
>>> rooted MDI (Multiple Document Interface) where most people don't "get"
>>> how
>>> they can place two workbooks next to each other like they can so easily
>>> do
>>> with Word. Outlook's non-standard icon in the system tray that behaves
>>> completely different than EVERY program/application that puts an icon
>>> there.
>>> How many times do people throughout the day close Outlook by accident...
>>> thinking that little icon will stay there and they'll get their
>>> appointment
>>> reminders and e-mail alerts? Plus, nobody uses Outlook to its full
>>> potential. Nowadays it is *JUST* an e-mail client when once upon a time
>>> it
>>> was suppossed to be so much more (Universal Inbox? not to mention
>>> Collaboration?).
>>>
>>> I agree that Vista's file Explorer isn't all that great (as it could
>>> have
>>> been). But, please, keep the Office team far far away from the Windows
>>> Shell. The Office teams excel's at SUPERFICAL polish... and that's all.
>>>
>>> "Dr. Strangelove" <> wrote in
>>> message
>>> news:8D7EEF9C-45DA-4E3D-81E3-...
>>> > Still, a good story, eh?
>>> >
>>> > Seriously, the desktop explorer is hopeless. If the Office group were
>>> > to
>>> > take control of it, things could only get better.
>>> >
>>> > For the years of waiting for Vista (now believed to be the functional
>>> > equal
>>> > of Windows ME), to have the desktop explorer become as bad as it is,
>>> > is
>>> > pretty disappointing. Regardless of all of the features of Vista,
>>> > ones
>>> > first
>>> > experience is via the desktop explorer. A very bad welcome mat,
>>> > indeed.
>>> >
>>> > Doc
>>> >
>>> > "CMoya" wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Outlook didn't spring forth as a new program by the Office team. It
>>> >> *IS*
>>> >> the
>>> >> old MS Exchange Client (which was in turn based on the old Win95
>>> >> "Inbox"
>>> >> program). All of its core dll's and programming model are rooted
>>> >> directly
>>> >> and built upon the old MS Exchange Client. It's one of the reasons
>>> >> you
>>> >> can't, for instance, have two Microsoft Exchange accounts in it, and
>>> >> all
>>> >> the
>>> >> "MAPI" shortcomings (Contacts vs AddressBook vs Recipients anyone?)
>>> >> are
>>> >> still in it today.
>>> >>
>>> >> Something similar just happened with FrontPage becoming "Expression
>>> >> Web."
>>> >> One look at its dialog boxes and quirks clues you in that's it just a
>>> >> revamped (albeit well done) updated FrontPage.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> "Dr. Strangelove" <> wrote in
>>> >> message
>>> >> news84ED3FF-8B94-4E93-BD10-...
>>> >> > What is the point of choosing a file for a folder picture, which is
>>> >> > recorded
>>> >> > in desktop.ini in said folder, only to have the desktop explorer
>>> >> > repeatedly
>>> >> > forget it?
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Once upon a time, there was the Exchange group at Microsoft. They
>>> >> > created
>>> >> > a
>>> >> > very nice email/messaging server. Unfortunately, they also thought
>>> >> > they
>>> >> > could create a client (the Exchange Client) for accessing email.
>>> >> > The
>>> >> > Exchange client was pretty bad.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Then, the Office group said "We can create a better client for
>>> >> > email".
>>> >> > Thus, the Outlook client was born, and the Exchange client died a
>>> >> > quiet
>>> >> > death. The Exchange group did not like this, but they accepted the
>>> >> > fact
>>> >> > that
>>> >> > their skills were best applied to the back end.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Office group, if you are listening, please create a competing
>>> >> > desktop
>>> >> > explorer, that will remember folder settings. The OS Group will
>>> >> > take
>>> >> > issue
>>> >> > with this, but, eventually, they will accept the fact that they do
>>> >> > not
>>> >> > have a
>>> >> > clue as to how to write a decent shell. Hell, you can even attach
>>> >> > a
>>> >> > price
>>> >> > to
>>> >> > it. If it is better, people will purchase it.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Doc
>>> >>
>>>
>