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. > Gimme a break. You ask 300 people what "Fully functional" means, and you'll > get 300 different answers. See above. > And you want them to predict how you EXPECT it to > act? Jesus...why not ask them to read your mind. Or do you never want > anything released ever until every potential customer's EXPECTATIONS and > INTENTIONS are fully met. If you were anyone other than JCW, I would take additional time to elaborate on the clear and obvious intent of my original fantasy statement of rebellion; intent you undoubtedly understood but chose to force into an expounded literalization; but, as you are JCW, and your reputation for never being wrong, and reading what you want to read into an exclamation just for the sport of making sport of other's frustrations, I'll save my time. (; > So far none of the complaints in this thread are any that I have. I want: > > 1) AppleScripts to NOT have to run in the main thread so that they don't > slow E'rage down. Excellent *feature* suggestion. I would happily pay an upgrade price next time around were this (and bug fixes) included. Even if there are no bug fixes, this is still a valuable feature that I will pay for, if not with a smile. (: > 2) A "new mail" flag in the Dictionary. YA feature suggestion I can get behind. Make that two votes, vote counters (whoever you are). > 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. (; > 7) To remove the ability to set the background color of an HTML email > message, and remove the ability to use images as backgrounds. Hmmm... I might actually turn HTML display back on with such bold ideas. (: > 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. > 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] > 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. /: >> I think what is disproportionate is what I am being charged for what I have >> received at times. > > 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? 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. > "Who Dares, Wins." > British Special Air Service (SAS) 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. 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. 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? Happy Sunday Frederico -- 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/>
