I continue to believe my interpretation of your attitude is more accurate than your defense thereof.
Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Greg Deckler Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 5:04 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Shortcuts to Outlook objects Well, that was how I took it as well, but he was just doing such a terrible job at it that it was really more just stupid than funny or anything else. I mean, if you are going to go down that path, then make it funny or at least mildly humorous versus coming out of left field with a DOS reference. Yes, you want to take the argument to the extreme to prove a point, but you cannot do it in such a way that your point comes across as invalid. I could just as easily argue the other side and point out how much fun it would be if every hotfix or service pack caused some major component of the OS to change drastically. Let's say that every hotfix from Microsoft changed the way printers were configured such that you had to go out and reconfigure all of the printers on everyone's desktop every time you applied a hotfix. And I hardly think that I am the biggest Microsoft basher on the planet. They have fundamental flaws in their products and the way that they operate as a company. I point out those flaws when I see them. That's it. However, in some circles, any complaint against Microsoft, no matter how insignificant, is deemed heresy. He's probably one of those Microsoft MVP's anyway, so he's on their payroll to be a bigot. > I think I get his point, and you don't, so I'll explain it to you. > It's that every time you perceive that something doesn't work, Greg, > you paint it as a giant Microsoft crusade to ruin your life. > > Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I > Tech Consultant > hp Services > Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Chris Scharff > Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 7:15 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Re: Shortcuts to Outlook objects > > > My point was that this is the straw that breaks the camels back. First > my application written for DOS 3.22 stops working on Windows X, then > they change core OS functionality like the ability to create an > Outlook:// shortcut on the desktop. I say it's time to switch to Linux > and Samsung Contact. Screw Microsoft and their poor, very poor > backwards compatibility. > > On 2/6/03 7:00, "Greg Deckler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > What exactly is your point in all of this? To be honest, I can't > follow any line of reasoning or an actual point to this post. You seem > to be complaining a lot about something, but I am not sure exactly > what it is. > > There's lots of sarcasm in the post, which seems to be a substitute > for actual substance. > > > My DOS application worked under Windows 2000 server, but now doesn't > > under > > > XP. How is that any different than something working under Outlook > > 97 and not under Outlook 2002[1]? Hell, there's functionality that > > worked in Outlook 2000 that was stripped out in Outlook 2000 SR1. > > Damn that > Microsoft! > > Bastards the whole lot of 'em. Stripping out core OS functionality > > like > > Outlook object hyperlinks. Ye gods, that's more critical than > preemptive > > multi-tasking! > > > > Next thing you know they'll want us all to upgrade to Exchange 2000 > > and > use > > these uniquely addressable hyperlink thingies and webdav. When will > > they > > learn that 640k is enough RAM for anyone? > > > > I have no idea what if any syntax will work for your Outlook:// > > hyperlinks > > > Greg, but thanks for the entertainment. I'd test, but I don't > > exactly use Outlook 2002 any longer. > > > > [1] Counts on fingers.. Outlook 97, Outlook 98, Outlook 98, Outlook > > 2000, > > Outlook 2001, Outlook 2002... Six. Yep, only six versions. What were > they > > thinking?[2] > > [2] There wasn't a similar hyperlink syntax for the Exchange client > was > > there? Cause then I'd really be mad at them for changing things > TWICE!!! > > > > On 2/5/03 18:42, "Greg Deckler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > First, I've already seen that Q-article. Still cannot get it to link > > correctly to an Excel file in Public Folder Favorites. I guess I'll > just > > have to keep trying different combinations until I hit the magic > syntax > > that makes it work, if it is even possible. > > > > Second, it is completely different. Last time I checked, I could > > still > > > pop > > > out to a command prompt and enter "\temp\picture.gif" or "notepad > > c:\temp\file.txt" and I can look at a file. This is equivalent. > > > > Backwards compatibility between an OS that has seen 6 or 7 version > > changes > > > and an OS that has seen 1 version change are completely different > > things. > > In addition, one is a matter of supporting third-party applications > and > > this is a matter of supporting core OS functionality. You cannot > > blame > > > them for not providing backwards compatibility for applications > written to > > > an OS eons ago but to not provide compatibility for a core OS > > function > > > of > > only a year or two ago is sad. > > > > > KB 296071 and no it's not that different. > > > > > > On 2/5/03 16:36, "Greg Deckler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > That is a far cry from something that worked in Windows 2000 and > Outlook > > > > > > 2000 to Windows XP and Outlook 2002. We're talking basic URL > > functionality > > > > here. > > > > > > > >> Right, I'm still pissed my DOS 3.2 applications don't run on > > > >> Windows > > XP. > > > >> Bastards! > > > >> > > > >> On 2/5/03 15:57, "Greg Deckler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Well, if you put in the "< >", XP wants to add an "http://"; in > > > >> front > of > > > > > it. > > > >> If you do not put that in, it just creates the shortcut, but > > > >> then > > > > >> it > > > >> throws up an error message saying that Outlook cannot open the > folder > > > or > > > >> file. I even tried to "~" as suggested by Slipstick. No luck. > > > >> Stupid. > I > > > > > >> hate it when Microsoft puts things into their product and then > > > >> strips > > > out > > > >> functionality or significantly changes things to the point that > > > >> stuff > > > > does > > > >> not work. Poor, very poor, backwards compatibility. > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
