On 8/16/04 7:49 AM, "Entourage:mac Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 04/08/15 1:00 PM, "John C. Welch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Define fully functional in a way that pleases every single user. Fully. >> With no argument whatsoever. Do it in the next six months with proof. > > Done now: Bugs that prevent an advertised feature from functioning as > promised or implied are eliminated. Name one sane, reasonable person who > would not appreciate that. Name them all, because so far, I haven't seen it, and I bet I've been using E'rage longer than you. <poor attempts at personal insults snipped for space and apathy> > >> 3) To be able to shut ALL dock bouncing and alert windows off forever. I can >> read an error log just fine, thanks. > > Yet another pointy stick poking me I'd like to see go away; was a time when > Dock Detox resolved this for free, but even the updated Panther version of > DD fails to kill this annoyance. > > And YA example of an expected behavior (given that there's actually a > preference setting that implies it will deal with this) that does not behave > as expected. Expectations. Mind reading. Differing opinions. Not here, > though, apparently. (; No...it's not expected. I see nothing in the notification preferences that suggest you can turn off all notifications of any kind. In fact, there's no control implied or explicit for error alerts. The only alert behavior you can control is new mail and sounds. There's no implication whatsoever that you can mute error dialogs. >> Hmmm...oddly enough, if they made me happy, you'd still be pissed. >> Wow...imagine that...ever customer has different needs. >>> Am I really the only one who uses Office Notifications? >> Evidently you are, at least as far as I know. I hate the damned things. >>> Am I the rare occurrence that isn't worth consideration? >> No, you just aren't the ONLY occurrence. >>> Am I the only person who has ever been maddened on a daily basis at the >>> embarrassment that is the Office Notifications window behavior? > > And as we all know, if it's of no use to JCW, anyone expecting it to work as > advertised is just plain silly, and he'll make a point of telling you that. Nice try Fred, but that's not what my point was, nor was it implied as my point. My point was, you have this, or appear to have, this idea that the things that bother you are so blatantly obvious and necessary that they must be fixed first. You also think they can be fixed with nor more effort than two days, a single programmer, and a case of jolt. But then, when you don't know all of what's involved, everything's easy. Hell, if you don't know what's involved, going to the moon is simple. The AppleScript slowdown maddens the HELL out of me, along with the alert dialog. But I am not even close to being so delusional that I think everyone thinks it's a major problem. Not everyone uses applescript, not everyone minds an error window. I also don't think that everything I don't like is a bug. > >> You may be. You may not be. But there are other people who buy far more >> licenses than you who have other needs. > > Wow...imagine that...ever[y] customer has different needs. (now where have I > heard that before?) And I am to take a back seat to people with more money, > even though I paid (more or less; probably more) the same cost for a single > license as they did, even though something advertised is broken. OK. As long > as I know the rules. [thud] If you're selling cars, and you have two customers, one that buys a single car once every three years and one that buys one hundred cars every three years plus another fifty or so in between, whose complaints get more weight. You don't ignore the smaller customer, but it's simple math that the guy who hands you a couple million regularly gets more attention than the guy that hands you a couple hundred. > >> There are people who buy the same >> number of licenses as you who have other needs. That's life, and life is >> unfair. > > No, in this case, it's just downright unethical -- or at least shameful. > Advertising a feature as useful, thus adding value to the product, that is > broken and refusing to fix it is more than unfair, even if better (overall) > paying customers fail to bring it up. But you don't use the feature, so I > must be wrong. /: Oh really...it's unethical? So you are now saying that MS is deliberately, and with forethought and planning, deceiving you. Again, you have yet to make a case for this with anything resembling proof, so I'll guess your annoyance is blinding you. >> Then don't buy it. [...] if you honestly feel that you cannot use >> E'rage or Office until these issues are fixed, you.don't.have.to. > > Not once, anywhere in this or any other thread, have I ever once said > Entourage is not worth buying or using; that it has superior alternatives; > that if they don't fix things on my terms, I'll teach them a lesson they'll > never forget and switch to Open Source; etc., etc. > > Jumping Jesus in a skirt; do you really think I would spend this much time > asking for a feature or a bug fix if I didn't love and depend on the > product? I think that there are people who would rather bitch than switch. Note the legions of Mac users spending all day in VPC and complaining about speed. Note the legions of Linux users who will rebuild their kernel and spend hours working around compatibility issues rather than just run Word and get work done. I don't love E'rage. But ever since it's release, it has suited my needs better than any other product. That is the only reason I use it, and recommend it. The day there's another product that does it better is the day I use that product. And yes, I do test them all. It's mind-numbingly dull. You ever try to test - drive Domino? You think E'rage is bad? Yeesh. I do like E'rage a lot. But at the end of the day, it's just an email/PIM app. If it pisses you off that badly, then there's got to be something else out there. Nothing on a computer is worth the anger and frustration I see here. > > The reason it's so very bloody and especially frustrating is that *I have* > been politely and repeatedly requesting this feature and that bug fix and > this HI flaw resolution through every known and possible channel for *years* > now; that not only is that and other problems still there, but no one will > even tell you if the complaint got to the proper ears or not, and if it's > even on the radar for the next release. The releases and patches are *SO* > very far apart in this product line is just icing on the cake -- or flies in > your Cheerios, take your pick. Well, there's a lot of things that a lot of people have wanted for years. But you don't get to, even as a developer, (something I did once for a few years at the enterprise level, and never again) fix the bugs that you want to fix. Esp. when you aren't a small squad of independent devs who can base everything off of a list developed by you and your customers. When you work for a company Dilbertian in scope, you don't even live in the same galaxy as the priority setters. > Great quote. I wonder what would happen if major software companies dared to > strive for perfection, and focused on making each feature already included > as good as it could (or at least should) be before spending the entire > development cycle wad on a whole new slew of imperfect features. I wonder if > companies might not see a different route to palatable profits. I wonder if > people would not then rapidly and with great satisfaction for value > received, exchange hard earned money as soon as a new, rock-solid, > well-designed, well-tested and effective applications hit the shelves. > I wonder what would happen if customers were willing to wait for this perfection and pay for it? There's two sides to that coin. > Contrary to popular myth, it is possible to build bug-free applications > (excluding those bugs that are a child of the parent OS and beyond the > purview of the developer to fix). It simply gets more complex to avoid them > the more the app is intended to do. And who requests the features? The people writing the checks. > > Food for thought: if one cannot reasonably build a complex application with > minimal or zero bug count, might one be unreasonable in reducing the > complexity or limiting the scope of the application until one's experience > and skill set can achieve additional goals without (the unwillingness to > fix) issues? Name ten features you'd be willing to remove from E'rage to get the ten things you want that aren't working the way you'd like. Remember, contrary to popular belief, the MacBU is not the recipient of unlimited funds and manpower. It's a small (read, the WinOutlook team is bigger than the ENTIRE MacBU.) part of a large company, develops for a foreign OS ( to MS), and while a nice cash cow, has to remain a cash cow. If it suddenly gets unprofitable because it's trying to double the number of programmers, then maybe it no longer makes business sense to do another version of Office. -- "Do not draw fire; it irritates the people around you." Your comrades. -- To unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> archives: <http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage-talk%40lists.letterrip.com/> old-archive: <http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage-talk%40lists.boingo.com/>
