Outlook's had Threaded View for decades. I don't exactly know what "conversation view" is, but it's something new.
But good job posting your ignorant bullshit for everybody to read. I guess it's easier to lie about what features Outlook has than to check your facts. Why do people mod up posts that *make shit up*?
Believe me, I'm not thinking like a geek-- or if I am, please slam my head in a locker or something. If you read my posts, you know I'm probably one of the biggest advocates for the end-user who posts to this site. I honestly and truly believe that those changes a trivial-- real neophytes don't bother doing anything but typing in a file name, they don't move files into different folders. Whether the default save position is named "My Documents" or "Documents" doesn't matter to them; it's trivial.
I typically use ArchLinux myself. Awesome for a while, but I've found myself using KDE4 more and more. Now that I have the hardware to run it, I don't see why I should use a TWM unless I'm coding.
And I'm not enough of a geek to know anything about ArchLinux, or what a "TWM" is. (Two Womenly Men? The Worst Mayonnaise? No clue. Bing says it's a company that makes electronic fuel injection parts.)
You're right, but there's one other important thing about Microsoft you have to realize:
When they have no competition, they don't bother. When Microsoft's web browser competition dissolved away, we ended up with IE6 for years and years and years-- when the web browser competition picked-up again, thanks to Mozilla and Apple and later Google, suddenly, WHAM! IE7, IE8, back to a regular development schedule, tons of great features.
Office moves slow because it has very little serious competition. And, hell, even at Office's slow pace, it's out-pacing OpenOffice. So they must be doing something right. Now, if Apple ported Pages/Numbers to Windows, and Adobe released OfficeShop, then you'd see Microsoft moving-ass on getting Office up-to-snuff. As is, why should they bother?
In the vast vast majority of projects, speeding up a sort will not increase performance perceptibly. In the vast vast majority of projects, dinking around with sorting code is nothing but a waste of time.
That's great, but 99.9% of programmers, when doing things like what you've described above, are just dinking around. Spending hours working on stupid sub-millisecond performance issues while there are real client-impacting bugs still in the product.
Now you might work in a field where those optimizations are needed; that's fine. But you have to realize that's very, very, very few programmers. The vast majority of programmers, if they tell you they're rewriting Sort(), that's code for "I'm wasting your time."
You're seriously saying that completely redesigning the Office UI is on the exactly same level as changing the folder from "My Documents" to just "Documents?" You're so far away from "logic" and "reason" right now, I don't even know how to steer you back onto the right path.
Look, Windows hasn't. fucking. changed. in ages. Look, I've used Macs, I've used Linux, I've used Windows. OS X and Linux change more in 2 releases than Windows has in its entire history. It's a ridiculous argument.
Tell you what, look at the problem a slightly different way:
Ask your users what they prefer: 1) Spend two days chugging through the bug list, and resolve a couple of the most-annoying ones 2) Spend two days re-writing sorts to increase their speed, even though it's likely that you'll never make a human-perceptible dent in performance
What do you think is a better use of that two days? (And before you argue that 2 days is too long for something like implementing a sort, remember that it includes the before-and-after benchmarking, the code review, the unit tests, etc etc.)
Odds are, in the entire history of your program, the amount of time you spent coding your custom sort algorithm will *never* be recovered by the users of your program. If that's seriously what you spend your day doing, you either work for a company which doesn't care about results, or one that has absolutely no idea how to prioritize your time. There's no way you can beat the built-in Sort() in enough cases to make that worthwhile.
If your "custom designing and engineering" is any more involved than copying-and-pasting, then you're doing nothing but wasting your company's time.
It's really bothering me that there's so many postings here talking about sorting data. It's a freakin' solved problem. There's already a Sort() function in every language/framework under the sun.
Why do so many programmers love to re-invent the wheel constantly? To un-solve the solved problem? To write their own instead of using the one that Javascript, or C++, or.net, or whatnot provides in a single freakin' line of code? Ugh.
If you're constantly re-inventing the wheel, you can't move on to the really fun stuff, like the Porsche 911.
For some values of {changed|significantly|Office|Windows|shit}. Have you tried using pre-Windows versions of Word? Windows 1.0/3.1/95? There were significant changes
You're going back lifetimes. And being an pedantic asshole.
for example, Unicode support is a significant development as is, oh, I dunno, multitasking.
And yet neither of those changes require re-training.
Just admit you were full of shit so we can move on.
Office has significantly changed once in its entire history. Once. Windows, on the other hand, has actually changed ZERO times, unless you count trivial cosmetic changes, in which its changed twice in its entire history. Twice.
I've never used the Warcraft 3 level editor, but what distinguishes it from "programming?"
For example, I don't forsee the ability to write to a file and read from a file or create complicated data structures as being features.
Last I checked, neither of those were required for "programming." I have lots of programs on my iPhone that don't read/write from files or create complicated data structures. By your definition, they're not "real" programs.
What it all sums up to is: don't be an elitist prick. Programming is programming.
Out of curiosity, if I used the Xbox 360 on-screen keyboard to type a novel, would it not be a "real" novel? You know, since I used a gamepad to make it.
For me, Overlord, Oblivion and Fallout 3 all had places where I laughed out loud. I think it's due more to your selection of games than anything else, frankly. (Same with the article author.)
I think one of the major reasons why games arent funny is because developers take themselves too seriously (witness the travesty that was oblivion with guns).
There were several places in Fallout 3 that made me laugh out loud. Notably, the fate of the Megaton technician woman after Megaton gets nuked-- that was hilarious. I think you've devoted so much of your psyche to hating the Fallout 3, it's made you blind to the things they actually did really well.
I kind of wonder what games the writer played. Overlord was hilarious, and I assume Overlord 2 (which came out recently) is equally entertaining. I think the only conclusion he's drawn is "when you don't play funny games, games aren't funny."
That story is bunk. Europeans, back to the Greeks (and probably before), knew that the world was round.
The debate that Columbus had wasn't whether it was round, but whether it was *small enough* that a ship could sail westward to reach "the Orient" before running out of provisions, instead of taking the long and dangerous eastward route. It turns out the answer is: "no, it's not." So Columbus was wrong, but lucky.
And to dispell another commonly-held myth, North America had long been visited by Norse explorers. The evidence for this is extremely, extremely strong. (Even if you don't count their Greenland and Iceland colonies as being in North America.)
Slashdot Mirror
Just be glad she didn't have cat ears and a ridiculously large bell around her neck. It's Japanese-- you get what you can take!
Outlook's had Threaded View for decades. I don't exactly know what "conversation view" is, but it's something new.
But good job posting your ignorant bullshit for everybody to read. I guess it's easier to lie about what features Outlook has than to check your facts. Why do people mod up posts that *make shit up*?
Believe me, I'm not thinking like a geek-- or if I am, please slam my head in a locker or something. If you read my posts, you know I'm probably one of the biggest advocates for the end-user who posts to this site. I honestly and truly believe that those changes a trivial-- real neophytes don't bother doing anything but typing in a file name, they don't move files into different folders. Whether the default save position is named "My Documents" or "Documents" doesn't matter to them; it's trivial.
I typically use ArchLinux myself. Awesome for a while, but I've found myself using KDE4 more and more. Now that I have the hardware to run it, I don't see why I should use a TWM unless I'm coding.
And I'm not enough of a geek to know anything about ArchLinux, or what a "TWM" is. (Two Womenly Men? The Worst Mayonnaise? No clue. Bing says it's a company that makes electronic fuel injection parts.)
So do that. Why are you whinging on here about it? There are tons of free VM products, on the off-chance it won't run in Windows.
You're right, but there's one other important thing about Microsoft you have to realize:
When they have no competition, they don't bother. When Microsoft's web browser competition dissolved away, we ended up with IE6 for years and years and years-- when the web browser competition picked-up again, thanks to Mozilla and Apple and later Google, suddenly, WHAM! IE7, IE8, back to a regular development schedule, tons of great features.
Office moves slow because it has very little serious competition. And, hell, even at Office's slow pace, it's out-pacing OpenOffice. So they must be doing something right. Now, if Apple ported Pages/Numbers to Windows, and Adobe released OfficeShop, then you'd see Microsoft moving-ass on getting Office up-to-snuff. As is, why should they bother?
I find that hard to believe. How many of those people they asked actually used office as a mission critical application in their day to day use?
Haha! How many people who bitch about the ribbon on Slashdot actually use Office as a mission-critical application in their day-to-day use?
In the vast vast majority of projects, speeding up a sort will not increase performance perceptibly. In the vast vast majority of projects, dinking around with sorting code is nothing but a waste of time.
That's great, but 99.9% of programmers, when doing things like what you've described above, are just dinking around. Spending hours working on stupid sub-millisecond performance issues while there are real client-impacting bugs still in the product.
Now you might work in a field where those optimizations are needed; that's fine. But you have to realize that's very, very, very few programmers. The vast majority of programmers, if they tell you they're rewriting Sort(), that's code for "I'm wasting your time."
You're seriously saying that completely redesigning the Office UI is on the exactly same level as changing the folder from "My Documents" to just "Documents?" You're so far away from "logic" and "reason" right now, I don't even know how to steer you back onto the right path.
Look, Windows hasn't. fucking. changed. in ages. Look, I've used Macs, I've used Linux, I've used Windows. OS X and Linux change more in 2 releases than Windows has in its entire history. It's a ridiculous argument.
Tell you what, look at the problem a slightly different way:
Ask your users what they prefer:
1) Spend two days chugging through the bug list, and resolve a couple of the most-annoying ones
2) Spend two days re-writing sorts to increase their speed, even though it's likely that you'll never make a human-perceptible dent in performance
What do you think is a better use of that two days? (And before you argue that 2 days is too long for something like implementing a sort, remember that it includes the before-and-after benchmarking, the code review, the unit tests, etc etc.)
Odds are, in the entire history of your program, the amount of time you spent coding your custom sort algorithm will *never* be recovered by the users of your program. If that's seriously what you spend your day doing, you either work for a company which doesn't care about results, or one that has absolutely no idea how to prioritize your time. There's no way you can beat the built-in Sort() in enough cases to make that worthwhile.
If your "custom designing and engineering" is any more involved than copying-and-pasting, then you're doing nothing but wasting your company's time.
It's really bothering me that there's so many postings here talking about sorting data. It's a freakin' solved problem. There's already a Sort() function in every language/framework under the sun.
Why do so many programmers love to re-invent the wheel constantly? To un-solve the solved problem? To write their own instead of using the one that Javascript, or C++, or .net, or whatnot provides in a single freakin' line of code? Ugh.
If you're constantly re-inventing the wheel, you can't move on to the really fun stuff, like the Porsche 911.
You learn it for that reason, then you never, ever use it because instead you use the .Sort() build-in to the toolset you're using. As you should.
Those changes aren't "significant" those changes are "trivial." You guys are really, really stretching to prove the grandparent's retarded point.
For some values of {changed|significantly|Office|Windows|shit}. Have you tried using pre-Windows versions of Word? Windows 1.0/3.1/95? There were significant changes
You're going back lifetimes. And being an pedantic asshole.
for example, Unicode support is a significant development as is, oh, I dunno, multitasking.
And yet neither of those changes require re-training.
Just admit you were full of shit so we can move on.
Office has significantly changed once in its entire history. Once. Windows, on the other hand, has actually changed ZERO times, unless you count trivial cosmetic changes, in which its changed twice in its entire history. Twice.
In short, you're full of shit.
I've never used the Warcraft 3 level editor, but what distinguishes it from "programming?"
For example, I don't forsee the ability to write to a file and read from a file or create complicated data structures as being features.
Last I checked, neither of those were required for "programming." I have lots of programs on my iPhone that don't read/write from files or create complicated data structures. By your definition, they're not "real" programs.
What it all sums up to is: don't be an elitist prick. Programming is programming.
Out of curiosity, if I used the Xbox 360 on-screen keyboard to type a novel, would it not be a "real" novel? You know, since I used a gamepad to make it.
In Britain's case everyone's too busy hating Europeans (then going on holiday there),
So they hate themselves? Then go on vacation to their own house?
For me, Overlord, Oblivion and Fallout 3 all had places where I laughed out loud. I think it's due more to your selection of games than anything else, frankly. (Same with the article author.)
This part was my favorite in the game: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05akmWwvzBQ&feature=related
I think one of the major reasons why games arent funny is because developers take themselves too seriously (witness the travesty that was oblivion with guns).
There were several places in Fallout 3 that made me laugh out loud. Notably, the fate of the Megaton technician woman after Megaton gets nuked-- that was hilarious. I think you've devoted so much of your psyche to hating the Fallout 3, it's made you blind to the things they actually did really well.
I kind of wonder what games the writer played. Overlord was hilarious, and I assume Overlord 2 (which came out recently) is equally entertaining. I think the only conclusion he's drawn is "when you don't play funny games, games aren't funny."
That story is bunk. Europeans, back to the Greeks (and probably before), knew that the world was round.
The debate that Columbus had wasn't whether it was round, but whether it was *small enough* that a ship could sail westward to reach "the Orient" before running out of provisions, instead of taking the long and dangerous eastward route. It turns out the answer is: "no, it's not." So Columbus was wrong, but lucky.
And to dispell another commonly-held myth, North America had long been visited by Norse explorers. The evidence for this is extremely, extremely strong. (Even if you don't count their Greenland and Iceland colonies as being in North America.)
And open source projects almost invariable ignore your b) bug reports, leaving only a) code contributions.