Microsoft H1B visa employees are on the same payscale and benefits program as US employees. Just keep in mind when you're arguing about/against/for H1B visas, that Microsoft is one of the (seemingly few) companies that does not abuse the privilege-- they genuinely need qualified people from overseas.
Of course not, I'm just saying that the word "layoff" has a specific meaning. I mean, I can claim "murder" means "slightly annoy", and then claim Microsoft "murdered" 50,000 people today, but I'd be full of shit, much as you were full of shit.
If you're working on a contract, and your contract can be canceled at any time, well tough shit. If you don't like that arrangement, don't sign the contract. Sure it's "horrible" that you "lost your job", but that's the job you signed up for, so just cope with it. Contracting is contracting.
Besides, when I worked at MS Games, all the contractors there were totally useless. Most of them would just go on unemployment for the 3 months they couldn't sign a new MS contract, and many of them had been contracting in this fashion for 9+ years with no ambition or drive to do anything more than that. I don't have much sympathy.
Your point amounts to: Microsoft's OS sucks too, so there's no need for Linux to improve at all.
Please stop posting that. It's not only basically off-topic, it's actually counter-productive. Nobody is claiming that Windows is perfect, or even good; the claim you're responding to was that Linux should improve. If you honestly believe Linux should stop improving when it's faults are even with Microsoft's faults, then you're basically saying Linux should never, ever be better than Windows.
This is exactly what happened to one of my old work computers.
I wouldn't recommend using the VB Script, as that's kind of like ignoring the loud knocking sound from your car by turning up the radio. Your drive, or drive controller, is dying-- at the very, very least make backups.
If by "caused", you mean "started it off," then you're right. But the fact is that the US economy has been doing better than most others in the world, meaning that even though the US economy was ridiculously fragile, it was actually less fragile than most other nations.
Secondly, my point was that their consumer products won't be affected in the short-term. Nothing they're doing would cripple Windows, Office, SQL Server, etc development. The products that the company exists to make. Plus Microsoft is notoriously pretty awful at actually turning their R&D efforts into actual products, as I'm sure has been pointed out on Slashdot about 50 billion times.
I don't know what being US citizens has to do with anything at all. I didn't mention it, nor did the parent poster. (I also don't buy the assumption that most, or even many, of the MS R&D employees are PhDs.)
The "good" news is that microsoft is only cutting R&D and support staff so far. The bad news is that they haven't specified how many contractors are being cut.
Two reasons: 1) This was several years ago; StackOverflow didn't exist then. 2) I didn't know they were actually called "Gantt charts" at the time; I just asked for an application like Microsoft Project. 3) The people I was talking to had volunteered to help me switch over to Linux, so why *wouldn't* I ask them?
I can't tell you how many game forums I've seen where games, and especially games with mods, don't work in Vista because UAC breaks folder privileges.
Wrong; UAC *enforces* the rules that have always been in place. It's not Microsoft's fault that game developers are piss-poor at programming, and their products usually end up as buggy pieces of shit.
In XP, I can run the game as a non-admin, and just elevate rights for specific files or specific folders.
YOU can, because you know how to. The average man-on-the-street would never be able to manage this, and for them Vista's method (which is automatic and not manual) is much better.
In Vista, the Program Files folder is sacrosanct territory and must be treated differently.
As it is in XP, and 2000, and NT4. Again, applications are *never* supposed to write files to the Program Files folder in *any* version of NT. The only difference between Vista and XP here is that Vista actually enforces these rules programmatically, instead of relying on software developers to do the right thing.
Installing the game outside of that folder all buy bypasses UAC, rendering the so-called security useless.
No it doesn't; it still prevents (for example) a virus downloaded from an online game infecting user accounts other than your own. Given, it definitely weakens the protection (and boo on companies who have done this as a "workaround" for their buggy-ass applications: I'm talking to you Blizzard*!) but you're still better off than running the same game as Admin on XP.
I've developed XP sandboxes for my users when I make desktop images, or when I research and install individual apps. I find precisely what authority they need, and grant that. I find proper sandboxing to be easier in XP.
Maybe, but Vista does it *automatically* (for IE at least) without any user interaction. Say it with me: "I am not the typical user." The typical user doesn't know how to fiddle with permissions, so he just runs as Admin. Vista allows them to run as a more secure user account without knowing how to fiddle with permissions; this is a GOOD THING.
Yes, it matters. It matters a lot. People who bought Vista and installed it because they liked it are the sorts of people who might upgrade to Windows 7. People who run Vista because it came preinstalled and they couldn't be bothered to request a downgrade to XP are similarly unlikely to spend the money, time, or effort to upgrade to Windows 7.
What point, exactly, are you trying to make?
People who like Vista enough to go out of their way to upgrade are more likely to buy the next OS upgrade-- ok, I can buy that.
People who didn't upgrade on purpose, but got it with their OEM hardware are more likely not to upgrade to the next OS version-- ok, I'll buy that too.
XP allows you to run as a non-admin, and it is easier in XP.
No; if the application is written to expect admin, it'll simply break in XP, not run at all. Vista will automatically either: 1) Spoof the admin folders it's trying to write to to some other user-level folder, or 2) Prompt you to increase its permissions.
Both of Vista's behaviors are much better than the way XP handled it (i.e. simply breaking the app.) Now you *can* use the "Run As..." service in XP, if you wanted, but you have to enter a username/password each time, while on Vista you only have to click once to give the go-ahead. (And, for applications Vista uses option 1 for, you don't have to do jack-- it just works right.)
If you are surfing the web in IE, you fail. If you insist on running IE, you can run IE without permissions with IE7 in XP.
The fact is, IE is more secure, and that is a feature of Vista. Whether or not you like/use IE is utterly 100% irrelevant to the argument.
2000 supported transparency, but they didn't activate it. I'm running the Vista Transformation Pack. I have a translucent Aero interface on XP that runs faster than Vista.
You have benchmarks to prove such? Any translucent interface for XP is running some kind of crazy compositing layer, there's virtually no technical way it's possibly faster than Aero's use of your VPU capabilities.
And Vista's driver model was so broken, that the composite effects eat up CPU resources. A proper composite system shouldn't eat up the CPU and memory so much, because it should offload to the GPU.
Out of curiosity, how are you benchmarking this? I'd like to replicate your results with Aero on, and with it off. Your vagueness suggests you're going with your "gut-feeling."
The Start Menu is a huge regression. A scrollbar within the Start Menu? It takes me far more clicks, and far more time to get to what I'm looking for. The Vista menu is a usability nightmare. Adding search does not offset the poor design.
I disagree. For me, using the search field is always quicker than selecting a program from XP's start menu. I think you're too entrenched in your ways to make efficient use of the search field, and that if you spent some time with it, you would come to agree with... well, most everybody. OS X's has a launcher based on search, too, so it's not like Microsoft is pulling this out of their ass.
I've never had a crashed video driver ever in XP. For over six months after Vista's release, Nvidia couldn't release a decent working Vista driver at all.
And that has... what to do with the quality of the OS?
The fact that Microsoft placed so much emphasis on fixing the issues with video drivers in Vista points out that it was problematic.
Citation? I'm not aware of any changes made with video drivers in Windows 7 compared to Vista, I'd love to see the source of your information.
I've got BluRay working on XP.
Maybe; but not legally. Again: like with IE, this is a non-argument.
Yeah, but of course they're always going to be 99% "the same" because they have to run the same software as the previous version.
32-bit Vista can use XP drivers (it doesn't like to, and it gripes at you when you install them, but it can), so by your definition Vista's the same as well. Of course if you include things like TWAIN drivers and printer description files, then Vista's the same as Windows 3.11.
Users who really do only want to read email, browse the web, and play music on an iPod would be fine with Linux, and would probably be very interested to find that they can buy a laptop for less than a thousand dollars that will do all of that -- and comes preloaded with Linux, so no installation issues.
I bought a MSI Wind for $300 that can do all that, run Office, and came with a full copy of XP.
Anyway, I would argue that there is a "WebTV" class of users who aren't being serviced as well as they could be with products currently in the market, but I definitely don't think Linux is doing anything more to meet their needs than Microsoft is.
Windows Vista doesn't just cache more aggressively, though that's certainly one valid complaint. An OS generally should never page live VM pages out to disk except when there is memory contention. That means that prefetched data in the disk cache should drop to darn near zero before you start seeing paging traffic. If it doesn't, something is badly wrong. That said, this is just one of many significant memory problems with Vista.
While I agree with you, and Vista still has some problems in that area, it's a LOT better than XP (you know, the OS that everybody here loves so much better). XP frequently will start swapping out applications that have been minimized for 30 seconds-- it's ridiculous.
So in short, while I agree with you, the people who say "stick with XP" are actually saying to stick with the OS with *worse* swapping.
Yes it is, it makes windowing operations responsive even for applications that aren't. i.e. if I have some dumb application chugging along that doesn't have manage its UI in a separate thread, and I drag its window around, it still stays updated correctly in Vista. In XP, I'd see nothing but tons of invalid redraw areas.
Maybe it's not *very* useful, but saying it's not useful at all is just crap.
2. The performance sucks; it uses clock cycles and memory to automate things I don't care about
Uh, this is too vague to even address. For what it's worth, I *do* care about the automatic things Vista is doing (the search indexing is awesome), and Vista's really good about stopping them if I start putting load on the computer, so I have absolutely no problems with this.
3. Massive intrusive support for DRM and content protection (HDCP, etc)
What does the word "intrusive" mean in your head? I've had Vista since release day, and I've never been "intruded" on by any DRM. I honestly think this is just one of those Slashdot memes based on completely fantasy. If not, I'd love to hear exactly what operation Vista prevented you from doing due to DRM.
4. Windows Genuine Advantage is mandatory.
And...? So what?
Like with Vista, I don't see enough improvement to make it worthwhile.
Then don't use it. That's fine, nobody's holding a gun to your head to upgrade. But stop spreading bullshit about Vista, huh? You can not like something without spreading bullshit, right? Or have you lost that ability?
I'm not sure whether you're just paranoid, or actually stupid. Vista is perfectly stable. Microsoft gets the same amount of money whether people buy Vista now, or Windows 7 in a few months. Do you have any kind of citation, or even an argument based in reality, to say this is a conspiracy?
So you, a person who hates word processor, is the world's number one authority on what word processor people should use? The Slashdot attitude is totally wrong, and I'm sick of people who don't use, and don't like, office suites telling everybody else which office suite they should be using. I'm sorry to hurt your precious ego, but OpenOffice sucks.
Hell, Microsoft isn't even making any new versions of Frontpage (their last is 2003). What does that tell you?
Microsoft is still making it, they just renamed it. So it tells me you're utterly ignorant of what you speak.
Frontpage has turned into Expression Web, which is simply excellent. Seriously, try it... I have a couple extremely minor gripes, but it's an amazing web development tool now. It even does PHP syntax highlighting, which is something I thought I'd never see in a Microsoft product.
A corollary group of slashbots, zealots, extend this to mean that "If my chosen software package doesn't do it, it doesn't ever need to be done. If you think you need it, think again, because you're wrong and stupid."
Yah, I got exactly that when I asked if there was a Linux-based app that does Gantt charts like MS Project.
Turns out I didn't actually need to do Gantt charts, that Gnatt Charts are horrible abominations upon God, and of course Linux doesn't support making Gantt charts because Linux developers are blood-sucking zombie monsters.
I got a similar reaction when I pointed out (in a debate over how copy and paste still doesn't work right in Linux) that if you copy some cells from a spreadsheet program in Linux, and paste them into a bitmap paint program, you either get gibberish or nothing. The same operation on Mac OS or Windows produces a screenshot of the spreadsheet cells in the paint program, exactly as you'd expect.
Turns out I was an idiot for doing that, everybody knows that if you want a screenshot of something the CORRECT way is to use a screenshot utility, a bitmap editor, judicious use of the "Crop" utility, etc. (Ignore the fact that the copy and paste functionality of OS X and Windows do this exactly operation *automatically*.) Only a retard would ever want to put spreadsheet cells into a paint program, you moron, etc.
You couldn't have just bought one copy of Office to make him happy? I mean, you said yourself nobody else in the office needed or used the macros he was running.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft H1B visa employees are on the same payscale and benefits program as US employees. Just keep in mind when you're arguing about/against/for H1B visas, that Microsoft is one of the (seemingly few) companies that does not abuse the privilege-- they genuinely need qualified people from overseas.
Of course not, I'm just saying that the word "layoff" has a specific meaning. I mean, I can claim "murder" means "slightly annoy", and then claim Microsoft "murdered" 50,000 people today, but I'd be full of shit, much as you were full of shit.
If you're working on a contract, and your contract can be canceled at any time, well tough shit. If you don't like that arrangement, don't sign the contract. Sure it's "horrible" that you "lost your job", but that's the job you signed up for, so just cope with it. Contracting is contracting.
Besides, when I worked at MS Games, all the contractors there were totally useless. Most of them would just go on unemployment for the 3 months they couldn't sign a new MS contract, and many of them had been contracting in this fashion for 9+ years with no ambition or drive to do anything more than that. I don't have much sympathy.
By definition, releasing contractors isn't laying off employees. Contractors aren't even employees, period.
This is the first ever layoffs for Microsoft, regardless of what made-up fantasy definition of the word "layoff" you seem to have stuck in your head.
Your point amounts to: Microsoft's OS sucks too, so there's no need for Linux to improve at all.
Please stop posting that. It's not only basically off-topic, it's actually counter-productive. Nobody is claiming that Windows is perfect, or even good; the claim you're responding to was that Linux should improve. If you honestly believe Linux should stop improving when it's faults are even with Microsoft's faults, then you're basically saying Linux should never, ever be better than Windows.
We were never going to get a candidate elected who agreed with us on everything.
I disagree!
(More seriously, you'll never find a human being who agrees with you on everything. Learn to embrace the art of compromise.)
Fark memes? In my Slashdot?
It's more likely than you think!
This is exactly what happened to one of my old work computers.
I wouldn't recommend using the VB Script, as that's kind of like ignoring the loud knocking sound from your car by turning up the radio. Your drive, or drive controller, is dying-- at the very, very least make backups.
If by "caused", you mean "started it off," then you're right. But the fact is that the US economy has been doing better than most others in the world, meaning that even though the US economy was ridiculously fragile, it was actually less fragile than most other nations.
First of all, try being nice asshole.
Secondly, my point was that their consumer products won't be affected in the short-term. Nothing they're doing would cripple Windows, Office, SQL Server, etc development. The products that the company exists to make. Plus Microsoft is notoriously pretty awful at actually turning their R&D efforts into actual products, as I'm sure has been pointed out on Slashdot about 50 billion times.
I don't know what being US citizens has to do with anything at all. I didn't mention it, nor did the parent poster. (I also don't buy the assumption that most, or even many, of the MS R&D employees are PhDs.)
The "good" news is that microsoft is only cutting R&D and support staff so far. The bad news is that they haven't specified how many contractors are being cut.
I have it running on a MSI Wind right now (practically identical hardware to the Dell Mini 9.) As long as you have a HD, it runs great.
Two reasons:
1) This was several years ago; StackOverflow didn't exist then.
2) I didn't know they were actually called "Gantt charts" at the time; I just asked for an application like Microsoft Project.
3) The people I was talking to had volunteered to help me switch over to Linux, so why *wouldn't* I ask them?
I can't tell you how many game forums I've seen where games, and especially games with mods, don't work in Vista because UAC breaks folder privileges.
Wrong; UAC *enforces* the rules that have always been in place. It's not Microsoft's fault that game developers are piss-poor at programming, and their products usually end up as buggy pieces of shit.
In XP, I can run the game as a non-admin, and just elevate rights for specific files or specific folders.
YOU can, because you know how to. The average man-on-the-street would never be able to manage this, and for them Vista's method (which is automatic and not manual) is much better.
In Vista, the Program Files folder is sacrosanct territory and must be treated differently.
As it is in XP, and 2000, and NT4. Again, applications are *never* supposed to write files to the Program Files folder in *any* version of NT. The only difference between Vista and XP here is that Vista actually enforces these rules programmatically, instead of relying on software developers to do the right thing.
Installing the game outside of that folder all buy bypasses UAC, rendering the so-called security useless.
No it doesn't; it still prevents (for example) a virus downloaded from an online game infecting user accounts other than your own. Given, it definitely weakens the protection (and boo on companies who have done this as a "workaround" for their buggy-ass applications: I'm talking to you Blizzard*!) but you're still better off than running the same game as Admin on XP.
I've developed XP sandboxes for my users when I make desktop images, or when I research and install individual apps. I find precisely what authority they need, and grant that. I find proper sandboxing to be easier in XP.
Maybe, but Vista does it *automatically* (for IE at least) without any user interaction. Say it with me: "I am not the typical user." The typical user doesn't know how to fiddle with permissions, so he just runs as Admin. Vista allows them to run as a more secure user account without knowing how to fiddle with permissions; this is a GOOD THING.
*) See my blog post on the subject: http://blakeyrat.com/2008/11/02/world-of-warcraft-updates-and-the-definition-of-half-assed/
Yes, it matters. It matters a lot. People who bought Vista and installed it because they liked it are the sorts of people who might upgrade to Windows 7. People who run Vista because it came preinstalled and they couldn't be bothered to request a downgrade to XP are similarly unlikely to spend the money, time, or effort to upgrade to Windows 7.
What point, exactly, are you trying to make?
People who like Vista enough to go out of their way to upgrade are more likely to buy the next OS upgrade-- ok, I can buy that.
People who didn't upgrade on purpose, but got it with their OEM hardware are more likely not to upgrade to the next OS version-- ok, I'll buy that too.
So... what? What's your point?
XP allows you to run as a non-admin, and it is easier in XP.
No; if the application is written to expect admin, it'll simply break in XP, not run at all. Vista will automatically either:
1) Spoof the admin folders it's trying to write to to some other user-level folder, or
2) Prompt you to increase its permissions.
Both of Vista's behaviors are much better than the way XP handled it (i.e. simply breaking the app.) Now you *can* use the "Run As..." service in XP, if you wanted, but you have to enter a username/password each time, while on Vista you only have to click once to give the go-ahead. (And, for applications Vista uses option 1 for, you don't have to do jack-- it just works right.)
If you are surfing the web in IE, you fail. If you insist on running IE, you can run IE without permissions with IE7 in XP.
The fact is, IE is more secure, and that is a feature of Vista. Whether or not you like/use IE is utterly 100% irrelevant to the argument.
2000 supported transparency, but they didn't activate it. I'm running the Vista Transformation Pack. I have a translucent Aero interface on XP that runs faster than Vista.
You have benchmarks to prove such? Any translucent interface for XP is running some kind of crazy compositing layer, there's virtually no technical way it's possibly faster than Aero's use of your VPU capabilities.
And Vista's driver model was so broken, that the composite effects eat up CPU resources. A proper composite system shouldn't eat up the CPU and memory so much, because it should offload to the GPU.
Out of curiosity, how are you benchmarking this? I'd like to replicate your results with Aero on, and with it off. Your vagueness suggests you're going with your "gut-feeling."
The Start Menu is a huge regression. A scrollbar within the Start Menu? It takes me far more clicks, and far more time to get to what I'm looking for. The Vista menu is a usability nightmare. Adding search does not offset the poor design.
I disagree. For me, using the search field is always quicker than selecting a program from XP's start menu. I think you're too entrenched in your ways to make efficient use of the search field, and that if you spent some time with it, you would come to agree with ... well, most everybody. OS X's has a launcher based on search, too, so it's not like Microsoft is pulling this out of their ass.
I've never had a crashed video driver ever in XP. For over six months after Vista's release, Nvidia couldn't release a decent working Vista driver at all.
And that has... what to do with the quality of the OS?
The fact that Microsoft placed so much emphasis on fixing the issues with video drivers in Vista points out that it was problematic.
Citation? I'm not aware of any changes made with video drivers in Windows 7 compared to Vista, I'd love to see the source of your information.
I've got BluRay working on XP.
Maybe; but not legally. Again: like with IE, this is a non-argument.
Yeah, but of course they're always going to be 99% "the same" because they have to run the same software as the previous version.
32-bit Vista can use XP drivers (it doesn't like to, and it gripes at you when you install them, but it can), so by your definition Vista's the same as well. Of course if you include things like TWAIN drivers and printer description files, then Vista's the same as Windows 3.11.
Users who really do only want to read email, browse the web, and play music on an iPod would be fine with Linux, and would probably be very interested to find that they can buy a laptop for less than a thousand dollars that will do all of that -- and comes preloaded with Linux, so no installation issues.
I bought a MSI Wind for $300 that can do all that, run Office, and came with a full copy of XP.
Anyway, I would argue that there is a "WebTV" class of users who aren't being serviced as well as they could be with products currently in the market, but I definitely don't think Linux is doing anything more to meet their needs than Microsoft is.
Bull. Shit. How stupid do you think we are? If you're going to make shit up, try not to exaggerate so much, it'll be more convincing.
Windows Vista doesn't just cache more aggressively, though that's certainly one valid complaint. An OS generally should never page live VM pages out to disk except when there is memory contention. That means that prefetched data in the disk cache should drop to darn near zero before you start seeing paging traffic. If it doesn't, something is badly wrong. That said, this is just one of many significant memory problems with Vista.
While I agree with you, and Vista still has some problems in that area, it's a LOT better than XP (you know, the OS that everybody here loves so much better). XP frequently will start swapping out applications that have been minimized for 30 seconds-- it's ridiculous.
So in short, while I agree with you, the people who say "stick with XP" are actually saying to stick with the OS with *worse* swapping.
1. Aero is pretty, but not useful
Yes it is, it makes windowing operations responsive even for applications that aren't. i.e. if I have some dumb application chugging along that doesn't have manage its UI in a separate thread, and I drag its window around, it still stays updated correctly in Vista. In XP, I'd see nothing but tons of invalid redraw areas.
Maybe it's not *very* useful, but saying it's not useful at all is just crap.
2. The performance sucks; it uses clock cycles and memory to automate things I don't care about
Uh, this is too vague to even address. For what it's worth, I *do* care about the automatic things Vista is doing (the search indexing is awesome), and Vista's really good about stopping them if I start putting load on the computer, so I have absolutely no problems with this.
3. Massive intrusive support for DRM and content protection (HDCP, etc)
What does the word "intrusive" mean in your head? I've had Vista since release day, and I've never been "intruded" on by any DRM. I honestly think this is just one of those Slashdot memes based on completely fantasy. If not, I'd love to hear exactly what operation Vista prevented you from doing due to DRM.
4. Windows Genuine Advantage is mandatory.
And...? So what?
Like with Vista, I don't see enough improvement to make it worthwhile.
Then don't use it. That's fine, nobody's holding a gun to your head to upgrade. But stop spreading bullshit about Vista, huh? You can not like something without spreading bullshit, right? Or have you lost that ability?
I'm not sure whether you're just paranoid, or actually stupid. Vista is perfectly stable. Microsoft gets the same amount of money whether people buy Vista now, or Windows 7 in a few months. Do you have any kind of citation, or even an argument based in reality, to say this is a conspiracy?
So you, a person who hates word processor, is the world's number one authority on what word processor people should use? The Slashdot attitude is totally wrong, and I'm sick of people who don't use, and don't like, office suites telling everybody else which office suite they should be using. I'm sorry to hurt your precious ego, but OpenOffice sucks.
Hell, Microsoft isn't even making any new versions of Frontpage (their last is 2003). What does that tell you?
Microsoft is still making it, they just renamed it. So it tells me you're utterly ignorant of what you speak.
Frontpage has turned into Expression Web, which is simply excellent. Seriously, try it... I have a couple extremely minor gripes, but it's an amazing web development tool now. It even does PHP syntax highlighting, which is something I thought I'd never see in a Microsoft product.
A corollary group of slashbots, zealots, extend this to mean that "If my chosen software package doesn't do it, it doesn't ever need to be done. If you think you need it, think again, because you're wrong and stupid."
Yah, I got exactly that when I asked if there was a Linux-based app that does Gantt charts like MS Project.
Turns out I didn't actually need to do Gantt charts, that Gnatt Charts are horrible abominations upon God, and of course Linux doesn't support making Gantt charts because Linux developers are blood-sucking zombie monsters.
I got a similar reaction when I pointed out (in a debate over how copy and paste still doesn't work right in Linux) that if you copy some cells from a spreadsheet program in Linux, and paste them into a bitmap paint program, you either get gibberish or nothing. The same operation on Mac OS or Windows produces a screenshot of the spreadsheet cells in the paint program, exactly as you'd expect.
Turns out I was an idiot for doing that, everybody knows that if you want a screenshot of something the CORRECT way is to use a screenshot utility, a bitmap editor, judicious use of the "Crop" utility, etc. (Ignore the fact that the copy and paste functionality of OS X and Windows do this exactly operation *automatically*.) Only a retard would ever want to put spreadsheet cells into a paint program, you moron, etc.
You couldn't have just bought one copy of Office to make him happy? I mean, you said yourself nobody else in the office needed or used the macros he was running.