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]
